Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 22:11:46 +0100 From: "OxY" <oxy@field.hu> To: "Terje Elde" <terje+geom@elde.net> Cc: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Subject: Re: which mirror balance algorithm to use? Message-ID: <000601c63be2$6ac23d00$0201a8c0@oxy> References: <000b01c63b0f$c0779b10$0201a8c0@oxy> <44023791.2090008@elde.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
thanks a lot, i choosed load balance, one of my disks is slow. performance is great, load is low :) thxx! best wishes! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Terje Elde" <terje+geom@elde.net> To: "OxY" <oxy@field.hu> Cc: <freebsd-geom@freebsd.org> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 12:19 AM Subject: Re: which mirror balance algorithm to use? > OxY wrote: >> my box is a file server, it has about ~100-150 simultaneous connection >> all the time, so the disks are very busy.. >> i'd like to use the best performance balance algorithm to reduce disk >> load, which is about 80-90% now.. >> which one should i use? 'load' and 'round-robin'? >> why? >> > > There are many factors here. If you're using both slow and fast disks, > using the load algorithm might have some advantages for example. > > I know this isn't the answer you want, but the best way to go about this > might actually be to test the different algorithms. It's easy enough to > change, and then you can run up some numbers on how well it seem to be > performing with the different ones in your setup. Best thing would be > if you could run with a simulated load after hours, so you can get the > exact same test patterns run for the different algorithms. Combine with > trying them out with real world load, and things should get interesting. > > Terje > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?000601c63be2$6ac23d00$0201a8c0>