Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:32:50 +0100
From:      Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@digiware.nl>
To:        Danny Carroll <danny@dannysplace.net>
Cc:        freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Jeremy Chadwick <koitsu@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Areca vs. ZFS performance testing.
Message-ID:  <491BE632.1020801@IMAP>
In-Reply-To: <491BBF38.9010908@dannysplace.net>
References:  <490A782F.9060406@dannysplace.net>	<20081031033208.GA21220@icarus.home.lan>	<490A849C.7030009@dannysplace.net>	<20081031043412.GA22289@icarus.home.lan>	<490A8FAD.8060009@dannysplace.net> <491BBF38.9010908@dannysplace.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Danny Carroll wrote:
> Danny Carroll wrote:
>> Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>>> I'd like to see the performance difference between these scenarios:
>>>
>>> - Memory cache enabled on Areca, write caching enabled on disks
>>> - Memory cache enabled on Areca, write caching disabled on disks
>>> - Memory cache disabled on Areca, write caching enabled on disks
>>> - Memory cache disabled on Areca, write caching disabled on disks
>>>
> 
> 
> The initial results for a ICH9 vs Areca in JBod mode can be found here:
> http://www.dannysplace.net/ZFS-JBODTests.html

Just as a polite question, since I'm very much in favor doing benchmarking and 
do appreciate these kinds of test.

You might want to add an introductory page to your results describing how you 
setup the test:
	Details of the hardware
	Details of the disk setup
	possible version and options with bonnie
	The script you used....

This would allow others to redo your experiment and try to figure out why their 
numbers are different.

--WjW




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?491BE632.1020801>