Bucky, On 9/15/06 11:28 AM, "Bucky Jordan" <bjordan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > What other file systems have you had good success with? Solaris would be > nice, but it looks like I'm stuck running on FreeBSD (6.1, amd64) so > UFS2 would be the default. Not sure about XFS on BSD, and I'm not sure > at the moment that ext2/3 provide enough benefit over UFS to spend much > time on. It won't matter much between UFS2 or others until you get past about 350 MB/s. > Also, has anyone had any experience with gmirror (good or bad)? I'm > thinking of trying to use it to stripe two hardware mirrored sets since > HW RAID10 wasn't doing as well as I had hoped (Dell Perc5/I controller). > For a 4 disk RAID 10 (10k rpm SAS/SCSI disks) what would be a good > target performance number? Right now, dd shows 224 MB/s. Each disk should sustain somewhere between 60-80 MB/s (see http://www.storagereview.com/ for a profile of your disk). Your dd test sounds suspiciously too fast unless you were running two simultaneous dd processes. Did you read from a file that was at least twice the size of RAM? A single dd stream would run between 120 and 160 MB/s on a RAID10, two streams would be between 240 and 320 MB/s. > And lastly, for a more OLAP style database, would I be correct in > assuming that sequential access speed would be more important than is > normally the case? (I have a relatively small number of connections, but > each running on pretty large data sets). Yes. What's pretty large? We've had to redefine large recently, now we're talking about systems with between 100TB and 1,000TB. - Luke
