On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 07:51:28PM -0500, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
>
> What strategy are you using to sort inside RAIDframe? This is a property
> of the RAID set; you can see it with raidctl I believe for autoconfigured
> sets.
>
> I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see bad interactions
On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 10:33:15AM +, Stephen Borrill wrote:
>
> Am I missing something here? Your figures suggest that Input (i.e. reading)
> is pretty much the same, but it is Output (i.e. writing) that has higher
> throughput
You're right, I mixed it up. Write throughput is what I meant.
On Thu, 3 Dec 2015, Petar Bogdanovic wrote:
On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 08:23:28PM +, Michael van Elst wrote:
That's probably why setting the queues all to fcfs is the best
for you.
Not as dramatic as Emile's numbers but significantly higher read
throughput:
Am I missing something here?
On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 12:13:06PM +0100, Petar Bogdanovic wrote:
>
> I also tried a 5-stream dd test, based on one of your previous mails:
>
> https://mail-index.netbsd.org/netbsd-users/2014/12/01/msg015503.html
>
> All five streams got ~10MB/s each (bs=16k), more or less consistent with
>
On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 08:23:28PM +, Michael van Elst wrote:
>
> That's probably why setting the queues all to fcfs is the best
> for you.
Not as dramatic as Emile's numbers but significantly higher read
throughput:
# for i in disksort fcfs priocscan; do
for j in wd0 wd1 raid0;
On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 07:43:10PM +0100, Petar Bogdanovic wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 08:23:28PM +, Michael van Elst wrote:
> >
> > That's probably why setting the queues all to fcfs is the best
> > for you.
>
> Not as dramatic as Emile's numbers but significantly higher read
>
Hi,
I've never been really happy with my NetBSD RAIDframe NAS, never really got the
speed I was supposed to even with the right alignment / raid layout etc.
Today I dug into `dkctl(8)' while searching if cache was enabled for read and
write, and I came across the "strategy" command.
Long story
i...@home.imil.net ("Emile `iMil' Heitor") writes:
>as changing it only for the disk members was apparently counter-productive.
>And there we go, from a 40/50MB/s write average to a stunning 200 to 300MB/s,
>which is more like what the disks can theroically do.
>Could anyone with some background
On Wed, 2 Dec 2015, Michael van Elst wrote:
fcfs is also the "neutral" queue for drivers stacking on top of
each other. The queue sorting should really only be done
at one level.
But raidframe is more complicated because it does its own queuing
and sorting outside of this schema, in particular
