Bug1: Maybe im missing something here, why arent reads just as fast as writes?
The cynic in me suggests that the RAID driver has to wait for the
information to be read off the disks, but it doesn't have to wait for the
writes to complete before returning, but I haven't read the code.
-HJC
On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 04:51:46AM +1000, bug1 wrote:
> Maybe im missing something here, why arent reads just as fast as writes?
I note the same on a 2 way IDE RAID-1 device, with both disks on a separate
bus.
Regards,
bert hubert
--
| http://www.rent-a-ne
> -Original Message-
> From: bug1 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 10:39 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Benchmarks, raid0 performance, 1,2,3,4 drives
>
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > could
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hello,
Just to let you know, I also see very similar IDE-RAID0 performance
problems:
I have RAID0 with two 30G DiamondMax (Maxtor) ATA-66 drives connected to
a Promise Ultra66 controller.
I am using kernel 2.4.0-test1-
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> could you send me your /etc/raidtab? I've tested the performance of 4-disk
> RAID0 on SCSI, and it scales perfectly here, as far as hdparm -t goes.
> (could you also send the 'hdparm -t /dev/md0' results, do you see a
> degradation in those numbers as well?)
>
> it could e
Adrian Head wrote:
>
> I have seen people complain about simular issues on the kernel mailing
> list so maybe there is an actual kernel problem.
>
> What I have always wanted to know but haven't tested yet is to test raid
> performance with and without the noatime attribute in /etc/fstab I
> th
Head
> -Original Message-
> From: bug1 [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, 13 June 2000 04:52
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Ingo Molnar
> Subject: Benchmarks, raid0 performance, 1,2,3,4 drives
>
> Here are some more benchmarks for raid0 with different numbers
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> could you send me your /etc/raidtab? I've tested the performance of 4-disk
> RAID0 on SCSI, and it scales perfectly here, as far as hdparm -t goes.
> (could you also send the 'hdparm -t /dev/md0' results, do you see a
> degradation in those numbers as well?)
>
> it could e
could you send me your /etc/raidtab? I've tested the performance of 4-disk
RAID0 on SCSI, and it scales perfectly here, as far as hdparm -t goes.
(could you also send the 'hdparm -t /dev/md0' results, do you see a
degradation in those numbers as well?)
it could either be some special thing in yo
Here are some more benchmarks for raid0 with different numbers of
elements, all tests done with tiobench.pl -s=800
Hardware: dual celeron 433, 128MB ram using 2.4.0-test1-ac15+B5 raid
patch, raid drives on two promise udma66 cards (one drive per channel)
Write speed looks decent for 1 and 2 driv
10 matches
Mail list logo
