On Friday 03 March 2006 17:26, Jim Perrin wrote:
> > Yeah, we've also seen performance issues with raid5 on the 9500 series
> > products. The benchmarks we run look good, but when we've put them into
> > production file server environments, the performance has been
> > disappointing. With 500GB disks now available for $4.95 down at the local
> > Walgreen's, we've gone to raid 1 and are _very_ pleased with the
> > performance. Although it's been discouraged on this list, we're using
> > xfs and the unsupported CentOS kernels and haven't had any problems.
> > We're anxiously waiting the 'new, improved' xfs drivers for CentOS :) :)
>
> The 9550 has better performance over the 9500, but I don't have any
> real numbers to back up the differences.
I have close to identical machines with 9500 and 9550 in testbed so if people
have some special numbers they'd like compared I could maybe be persuaded to
run it.
/Peter
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Kjellstr?m |
National Supercomputer Centre |
Sweden | http://www.nsc.liu.se
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20060303/a46de3a7/attachment.bin
