On Sun, 2005-08-21 at 16:13 -0400, Ron wrote:
At 10:54 AM 8/21/2005, Jeremiah Jahn wrote:
On Sat, 2005-08-20 at 21:32 -0500, John A Meinel wrote:
Ron wrote:
Well, since you can get a read of the RAID at 150MB/s, that means that
it is actual I/O speed. It may not be cached in RAM.
Ron wrote:
PERC4eDC-PCI Express, 128MB Cache, 2-External Channels
Looks like they are using the LSI Logic MegaRAID SCSI 320-2E
controller. IIUC, you have 2 of these, each with 2 external channels?
A lot of people have mentioned Dell's versions of the LSI cards can be
WAY slower than the
Jeremiah Jahn wrote:
On Sat, 2005-08-20 at 21:32 -0500, John A Meinel wrote:
Ron wrote:
At 02:53 PM 8/20/2005, Jeremiah Jahn wrote:
Well, since you can get a read of the RAID at 150MB/s, that means that
it is actual I/O speed. It may not be cached in RAM. Perhaps you could
try the same
I'm resending this as it appears not to have made it to the list.
At 10:54 AM 8/21/2005, Jeremiah Jahn wrote:
On Sat, 2005-08-20 at 21:32 -0500, John A Meinel wrote:
Ron wrote:
Well, since you can get a read of the RAID at 150MB/s, that means that
it is actual I/O speed. It may not be
At 10:54 AM 8/21/2005, Jeremiah Jahn wrote:
On Sat, 2005-08-20 at 21:32 -0500, John A Meinel wrote:
Ron wrote:
Well, since you can get a read of the RAID at 150MB/s, that means that
it is actual I/O speed. It may not be cached in RAM. Perhaps you could
try the same test, only using say 1G,
I'm just watching gnome-system-monoitor. Which after careful
consideration.and looking at dstat means I'm on CRACKGSM isn't
showing cached memory usageI asume that the cache memory usage is
where data off of the disks would be cached...?
memory output from dstat is this for a few
At 02:53 PM 8/20/2005, Jeremiah Jahn wrote:
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 16:03 -0500, John A Meinel wrote:
Jeremiah Jahn wrote:
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 12:18 -0500, John A Meinel wrote:
snip
it's cached alright. I'm getting a read rate of about 150MB/sec. I would
have thought is would be faster
I'm reposting this because my mailer hiccuped when I sent it the
first time. If this results in a double post, I apologize.
At 02:53 PM 8/20/2005, Jeremiah Jahn wrote:
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 16:03 -0500, John A Meinel wrote:
Jeremiah Jahn wrote:
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 12:18 -0500, John A
Ron wrote:
Oops. There's a misconception here. ... OTOH, access time is
_latency_, and that is not changed. Access time for a RAID set is equal
to that of the slowest access time, AKA highest latency, HD in the RAID
set.
You're overgeneralizing from one specific type of raid, aren't
On Aug 17, 2005, at 10:11 PM, Jeremiah Jahn wrote:
I just put together a system with 6GB of ram on a 14 disk raid 10
array.
When I run my usual big painful queries, I get very little to know
memory usage. My production box (raid 5 4GB ram) hovers at 3.9GB used
most of the time. the new devel
here's an example standard query. Ireally have to make the first hit go
faster. The table is clustered as well on full_name as well. 'Smith%'
took 87 seconds on the first hit. I wonder if I set up may array wrong.
I remeber see something about DMA access versus something else, and
choose DMA
Jeremiah Jahn wrote:
here's an example standard query. Ireally have to make the first hit go
faster. The table is clustered as well on full_name as well. 'Smith%'
took 87 seconds on the first hit. I wonder if I set up may array wrong.
I remeber see something about DMA access versus something
Jeremiah Jahn wrote:
I just put together a system with 6GB of ram on a 14 disk raid 10 array.
When I run my usual big painful queries, I get very little to know
memory usage. My production box (raid 5 4GB ram) hovers at 3.9GB used
most of the time. the new devel box sits at around 250MB.
13 matches
Mail list logo
