From owner-freebsd-stable Wed Sep 15 13:33:28 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from lorax.ubergeeks.com (lorax.ubergeeks.com [209.145.74.241]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9DB315361 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 13:33:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from adrian@ubergeeks.com) Received: from localhost (adrian@localhost) by lorax.ubergeeks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA01113; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 16:33:14 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from adrian@ubergeeks.com) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 16:33:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Adrian Filipi-Martin Reply-To: Adrian Filipi-Martin To: Brad Knowles Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Vinum performance testing... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Brad Knowles wrote: > At 12:29 PM -0400 1999/9/15, Adrian Filipi-Martin wrote: > > I can say that the few tests I do recall running that provided > more detail, CPU utilization from vinum was very minimal. One test I > have a record of running on this same configuration reported the > following: > > /usr/local/bin/rawio -s 45660241920 -v 1 /dev/vinum/data1 > >Test name: anon > >Transfer count: 32768 > >Record count: 16384 > >Process count: 8 > >Device size: 2147483647 > >Test ID Time KB/sec %User %Sys %Total Reads Writes > >RR anon 781.799011 2700.7 0.1 6.7 6.8 131072 0 > >SR anon 994.598389 4318.3 0.1 7.3 7.3 131072 0 > >RW anon 2871.548584 736.3 0.0 1.9 1.9 0 131072 > >SW anon 195.158478 22007.6 0.2 60.8 60.9 0 131072 > > Of course, this was with older versions of vinum and rawio, and I > believe that the %Sys percentage reported was a bug that was fixed > long ago. Except for the Sequential Write test, you can see that the > overall CPU utilization was less than 10% across the board, and less > than 2% for the Random Write test (although that number seems > suspiciously low and might also have been the result of a bug which > has almost certainly been fixed since). This is in line with what I would expect for RAID 0 and 1. CPU usage just makes the I/O performance measurements more compelling. CPU will also be more interesting when it comes to measuring the RAID 5 performance later. Basically, I'm just playing devil's advocate. If someone asks me about vinum performance under FreeBSD, your graphs/stats are great to point to. CPU utilization is a favorite whipping-boy for people convinced hardware RAID is the only useful kind of RAID. cheers, Adrian -- [ adrian@ubergeeks.com -- Ubergeeks Consulting -- http://www.ubergeeks.com/ ] To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message