From owner-freebsd-scsi Wed Sep 18 19:31:30 1996 Return-Path: owner-freebsd-scsi Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id TAA07891 for freebsd-scsi-outgoing; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 19:31:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.crl.com (mail.crl.com [165.113.1.22]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA07872; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 19:31:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from post.io.org by mail.crl.com with SMTP id AA19603 (5.65c/IDA-1.5); Wed, 18 Sep 1996 19:31:54 -0700 Received: from zap.io.org (taob@zap.io.org [198.133.36.81]) by post.io.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA11954; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 22:28:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 22:28:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Tao To: dyson@freebsd.org Cc: FREEBSD-SCSI-L Subject: Re: Streamlogic RAID array benchmarks In-Reply-To: <199609182231.RAA01314@dyson.iquest.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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). -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob@io.org, taob@ican.net) Senior Systems and Network Administrator, Internet Canada Corp. "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"