Thanks for all the updates. Will look into iozone and the advice given
about the rest.
2010/5/6 <przemolicc@xxxxxxxxx>:
> On Thu, May 06, 2010 at 12:56:55AM -0700, John R Pierce wrote:
>> przemolicc@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> > The above numbers are true if we have random (!) IO pattern.
>> > In case of sequential (!) IO even SATA disks can deliver much, much higher numbers.
>> >
>>
>>
>> sequential IO is remarkably rare in a typical server environment
>
> Yes, of course: Oracle's redo logs which are key performance factor for all
> transactions (inserts/updates) have sequential IO pattern.
> And Oracle is not a typical server environment ....
>
>> anyways, the IOPS numbers on sequential operations aren't much higher,
>> they are just transferring more data per operation.
>
> I didn't say that they _are_ much higher. I said that even SATA
> disks can deliver hight IOPS on condition of sequential IO.
>
>
> Regards
> Przemyslaw Bak (przemol)
> --
> http://przemol.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Audi kilka tysiÄ cy zĹ otych taniej? Przebieraj wĹ rĂłd tysiÄ cy ogĹ oszeĹ !
> Sprawdz >>> http://linkint.pl/f26b3
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
