From owner-freebsd-scsi Wed Sep 18 19:49:20 1996 Return-Path: owner-freebsd-scsi Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id TAA14883 for freebsd-scsi-outgoing; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 19:49:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dyson.iquest.net (dyson.iquest.net [198.70.144.127]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA14848; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 19:49:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dyson.iquest.net (8.7.5/8.6.9) id VAA01096; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 21:48:59 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" Message-Id: <199609190248.VAA01096@dyson.iquest.net> Subject: Re: Streamlogic RAID array benchmarks To: taob@io.org (Brian Tao) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 21:48:59 -0500 (EST) Cc: dyson@freebsd.org, freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: from "Brian Tao" at Sep 18, 96 10:28:45 pm Reply-To: dyson@freebsd.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 ME8] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > On Wed, 18 Sep 1996, John S. Dyson wrote: > > > > If you are running -current (I forgot to check), and since you have > > 64MBytes, the buffer cache will help even though it is overrun. The > > buffer cache policy is NOT pure LRU, and you will see the effects of > > it on a 64MByte system even for a 100MByte benchmark. > > The tests were done on a 2.2-960801-SNAP system. Regardless, it > doesn't hide the fact that the RAID had much lower throughput than the > single drive. I going to try reformatting the RAID to level 0 and > seeing if not having parity makes a difference (although I might as > well save a few thousand dollars and just use ccd at that point). > I agree, and understand your point. Also, ccd as of today (and vn) are kind-of broken. Appear to work, but are okay until you need them (This is meant almost with humor -- but it isn't funny to some people :-()... John