On Mon Jan 14, 2013, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > On 1/14/2013 3:53 PM, Thomas Fjellstrom wrote: > > random random > > bkwd record > > stride > > > > KB reclen write rewrite read reread read > > write read rewrite read fwrite frewrite fread > > freread > > > > 33554432 8192 124664 121973 524509 527971 376880 > > 104357 336083 40088 392683 213941 215453 631122 > > 631617 > > > > I assume that is to you liking? > > Yes, much better. Now, where is the output from the system you're > comparing performance against? I haven't been comparing it against my other system, as its kind of apples and oranges. My old array, on somewhat similar hardware for the most part, but uses older 1TB drives in RAID5. Server hw: Supermicro X9SCM-FO Xeon E3-1230 3.2Ghz 16GB DDR3 1333mhz ECC 8 port IBM/LSI SAS/SATA HBA NAS hw: Intel S1200KP Core i3-2120 3.3Ghz 16GB DDR3 1333mhz ECC 8 port IBM/LSI SAS/SATA HBA Not the highest end hardware out there, but it gets the job done. I was actually trying to get less powerful hardware for the NAS, but I really couldn't find much that fit my other requirements (mini-itx server grade hw). Very limited selection of motherboards, most of which take socket 1155 cpus, and the selection of those that also take ECC ram is fairly limited as well. > > As for the simple home server array, if it were so simple, it'd work out > > of the box with no issues at all. > > It is working. And there are no issues, but for your subjective > interpretation of the iozone data, assuming it is not working properly. It is working. And I can live with it as is, but it does seem like something isn't right. If thats just me jumping to conclusions, well thats fine then. But 600MB/s+ reads vs 200MB/s writes seems a tad off. > This is why benchmarks of this sort are generally only good for > comparing one system to another. I'm running the same iozone test on the old array, see how it goes. But its currently in use, and getting full (84G free out of 5.5TB), so I'm not positive how well it'll do as compared to if it was a fresh array like the new nas array. Preliminary results show similar read/write patterns (140MB/s write, 380MB/s read), albeit slower probably due to being well aged, in use, and maybe the drive speeds (the 1TB drives are 20-40MB/s slower than the 2TB drives in a straight read test, I can't remember the write differences). -- Thomas Fjellstrom thomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
