On Sunday, 30 March 2003 at 18:10:07 +0200, Dag-Erling Smrgrav wrote:
> Lukas Ertl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I'm currently testing with prime stripe sizes, but it doesn't seem to
>> help. I additionally added "options AHC_ALLOW_MEMIO" to the kernel, and it
>> has raised write performance in th
On Sunday, 30 March 2003 at 16:30:17 +0200, Dag-Erling Smrgrav wrote:
> Anti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> try benchmarking ccd as well to see how it compares? and try some big stripe
>> sizes (4093, 8191, 12281)?
>
> I believe Greg showed in his USENIX paper on Vinum that large stripe
> sizes are
On Sunday, 30 March 2003 at 14:08:24 +0200, Dag-Erling Smrgrav wrote:
> Lukas Ertl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Anyone has an idea what's going wrong here? (Apart from me doing bullsh*t
>> benchmarking :-) .)
>
> Just out of curiosity, try again with prime stripe sizes (31, 61, 127,
> 257, 509) o
Lukas Ertl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> > Does the data sheet for your disk indicate that it can in fact write
> > much faster than that?
> Well, the HP/Compaq webpages are full of marketing speech wrt that, but
> since these disks are U320 disks,
On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> Lukas Ertl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'm currently testing with prime stripe sizes, but it doesn't seem to
> > help. I additionally added "options AHC_ALLOW_MEMIO" to the kernel, and it
> > has raised write performance in the single-disk case
Lukas Ertl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm currently testing with prime stripe sizes, but it doesn't seem to
> help. I additionally added "options AHC_ALLOW_MEMIO" to the kernel, and it
> has raised write performance in the single-disk case (although I'm not
> happy with that one either; I expect
Lukas Ertl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anyone has an idea what's going wrong here? (Apart from me doing bullsh*t
> benchmarking :-) .)
Just out of curiosity, try again with prime stripe sizes (31, 61, 127,
257, 509) or at least odd ones (31, 63, 127, 255, 511).
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EM
At 09:43 AM 9/16/99 +0800, Michael Robinson wrote:
>My biggest objection to vinum is that it will do what you tell it to,
>and then complain afterwards, rather than complain about it at the time
>you try to do it. Two good examples:
>
>1. You can add drives partitions that haven't yet been MAKEDE
At 02:30 AM 9/16/99 +0200, Brad Knowles wrote:
> My apologies. I was under the impression that it was still
>considered alpha code, but then I guess if it was it probably
>wouldn't have migrated to the -STABLE tree, now would it?
None needed, but we're not the only ones that assumed that
Mike Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Also, keep in mind that vinum does very little in the way of sanity checking.
>> It's very happy to trash your data if you tell it to do something even a
>> little bit unusual.
>>
>> After getting seriously burned (fortunately, during initial system
>> co
"Jeffrey J. Mountin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Like anything it will only do what you tell it, so in a way I'm of agreement.
My biggest objection to vinum is that it will do what you tell it to,
and then complain afterwards, rather than complain about it at the time
you try to do it. Two good
As I recall, Adrian Filipi-Martin wrote:
> This is in line with what I would expect for RAID 0 and 1. CPU
> usage just makes the I/O performance measurements more compelling. CPU
> will also be more interesting when it comes to measuring the RAID 5
> performance later.
And you'd particul
At 03:45 AM 9/16/99 +0800, Michael Robinson wrote:
>Also, keep in mind that vinum does very little in the way of sanity checking.
>It's very happy to trash your data if you tell it to do something even a
>little bit unusual.
Like anything it will only do what you tell it, so in a way I'm of agree
At 7:11 PM -0500 1999/9/15, Jeffrey J. Mountin wrote:
> Well Greg considers it a "release" anyway and no longer alpha. Surely it
> may be "under development" still, but then isn't -stable?
My apologies. I was under the impression that it was still
considered alpha code, but then I gue
At 02:09 PM 9/15/99 -0700, Mike Smith wrote:
>Perhaps we're seeing this differently, but "sworn off vinum" says to me
>"never using it again", and that's the point I was trying to make.
>People try something that's still under development, get bitten, and
>then claim forever after that the pro
At 1:43 PM -0700 1999/9/15, Jamie Norwood wrote:
> No offense, but you are wrong and he is right. A 'still under developement'
> product should NOT be used for critical production machines.
You're absolutely right. I believe that even with the latest
code, Greg does not recommend that
* skip the following three paragraphs if you're not interested in the
politics *
This is funny. Not funny "ha ha", but I think it's actually indicative of
the high quality of free software: we have to argue whether pre-release
features/functionality should be used in critical production m
17 matches
Mail list logo