Andrew, On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 11:05:49AM -0500, Andrew Theurer wrote: > at 32k all the time? That would explain why these results are flat, while I > am getting a wider range. I think this is a red herring, the chunk size code did accidentally get backed out of CVS for a while. But variable chunk sizes were certainly going into the kernel when we did the development. > Joe, are you absolutely sure these tests had the disk cache disabled? That's > the only hardware thing I can think of that would make a difference. Absolutely sure. Those figures were for a pair of PVs that were sharing an IDE cable so I can certainly get things moving faster. > It seems we can go 'round and 'round to no end, as long as we have HW > differences, so I have asked for use on a OSDL system we can both run on. > This way there is no difference in our HW. I'll let you know when I hear > back from them, so we can both test on the same system (if you want to). Excellent idea, we should probably think up some better benchmarks too. - Joe _______________________________________________ linux-lvm mailing list linux-lvm@sistina.com http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm read the LVM HOW-TO at http://www.sistina.com/lvm/Pages/howto.html
