Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
Well, I'm more accustomed to "sequential vs. random", but YMMW.
As to 67000 512 byte writes (this sounds suspiciously close to 32Mb
fitting into cache), did you have write-back enabled?
It's a sustained number, so it shouldn't matter.
Regards,
Andrey
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:03 AM, Arne Jansen <sensi...@gmx.net
<mailto:sensi...@gmx.net>> wrote:
Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:51 PM, Arne Jansen <sensi...@gmx.net
<mailto:sensi...@gmx.net> <mailto:sensi...@gmx.net
<mailto:sensi...@gmx.net>>> wrote:
Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
As to your results, it sounds almost too good to be true.
As Bob
has pointed out, h/w design targeted hundreds IOPS, and
it was
hard to believe it can scale 100x. Fantastic.
Hundreds IOPS is not quite true, even with hard drives. I
just tested
a Hitachi 15k drive and it handles 67000 512 byte linear
write/s, cache
Linear? May be sequential?
Aren't these synonyms? linear as opposed to random.
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
