From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Apr  2 00:24:56 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 9806C37B401; Wed,  2 Apr 2003 00:24:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailbox.univie.ac.at (mail.univie.ac.at [131.130.1.27])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 466B943F85; Wed,  2 Apr 2003 00:24:55 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from l.ertl@univie.ac.at)
Received: from pcle2.cc.univie.ac.at (pcle2.cc.univie.ac.at [131.130.2.177])
	by mailbox.univie.ac.at (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h328OdWb164536;
	Wed, 2 Apr 2003 10:24:46 +0200
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 10:24:39 +0200 (CEST)
From: Lukas Ertl <l.ertl@univie.ac.at>
To: "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <grog@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <20030402001826.GU34617@wantadilla.lemis.com>
Message-ID: <20030402102225.Y19644@pcle2.cc.univie.ac.at>
References: <20030330125138.K23911@leelou.in.tern>
	<20030330231000.GB1861@wantadilla.lemis.com>
	<20030402001826.GU34617@wantadilla.lemis.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
X-DCC-ZID-Univie-Metrics: mx2 4242; Body=2 Fuz1=2 Fuz2=2
cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: vinum performance
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code
	<freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 08:24:56 -0000

On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:

> > I've done some rawio benchmarks with different process counts (1, 2, 4,=
 8,
> > 16, 32 and 64). The results are at
> > <http://mailbox.univie.ac.at/~le/rawio.html>.
>
> How does this compare to the raw disk?

Oops, sorry, I've forgotten to include them on the page. They are on there
now.

Raw disk performance is indeed worse than RAID0/RAID5. Also interesting is
that the sequential read performance drops significantly in all cases when
going from 8 to 16 processes. Probably the bus is filled up then.

best regards,
le

--=20
Lukas Ertl                             eMail: l.ertl@univie.ac.at
UNIX-Systemadministrator               Tel.:  (+43 1) 4277-14073
Zentraler Informatikdienst (ZID)       Fax.:  (+43 1) 4277-9140
der Universit=E4t Wien                   http://mailbox.univie.ac.at/~le/