Today Yan Li wrote: > Tobias Oetiker: > > Thank you very much for the update. I'm a bit surprised to see the > single-reader on ext4 is worse than that on ext3. I'm to postpone the > upgrade of my systems to ext4. I dare not using data=writeback yet. > > I'm a bit confused about why you ran this on a RAID6 system. The RAID > card/driver might affected the performance in a way yet to be > understood. IMHO the less layers between Linux kernel and hard drive, > the better we can understand the kernel I/O scheduler/fs etc. > > Again, thank you for the great data.
As you can see from the results, running the test on a RAID6 gives vastly different results. Fact is that for reliability we are running all our servers on RAID6, so this is the configuration I am most interested to see working well ... good performance on a single disk does not help me much ... (I am glad to see that it is even worse to some extent, than my RAID6 performance). I think at the heart of the problem lies the fact benchmarks focus on single aspects of subsystems which then get optimized without looking at the overall impact. cheers tobi > > -- Tobi Oetiker, OETIKER+PARTNER AG, Aarweg 15 CH-4600 Olten, Switzerland http://it.oetiker.ch t...@oetiker.ch ++41 62 775 9902 / sb: -9900 -- Heavy Disk I/O harms desktop responsiveness https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/131094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
