Thanks for the feedback guys. I'm looking forward to the day when we upgrade to SSDs.
For future reference, the bonnie++ numbers I was referring to are:
Size: 63G
Sequential Output:
------------------------
396505 K/sec
% CPU 21
Sequential Input:
------------------------
401117 K/sec
% CPU 21
Random Seeks:
----------------------
650.7 /sec
% CPU 25
I think a lot of my confusion resulted from expecting sequential reads to be 4x the speed of a single disk because the disks are in RAID10. I'm thinking now that the 4x only applies to random reads.
On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 6:32 AM, Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Given the size of your bonnie test set and the fact that you're using
> RAID-10, the cache should make little or no difference. The RAID
> controller may or may not interleave reads between all four drives.
> Some do, some don't. It looks to me like yours doesn't. I.e. when
> reading it's not reading all 4 disks at once, but just 2, 1 from each
> pair.
Point of clarification. It may be that if two processes are reading
the data set at once you'd get a sustained individual throughput that
matches what a single read can get.
THIS IS A TEST
