From owner-freebsd-scsi Tue Oct 31 9:38:55 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org Received: from misery.sdf.com (misery.sdf.com [204.244.213.49]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C84337B479 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 09:38:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from tom (helo=localhost) by misery.sdf.com with local-esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13qeyw-0007TU-00; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 09:13:54 -0800 Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 09:13:52 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Samplonius To: "Marc G. Fournier" Cc: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: iostat: tps for SCSI drives ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > morning all ... > > what is considered to be a 'saturated drive', as far as tps is > concerned? I have a database server that I found one drive to be overused > with another not used at all, so I started moving around databases to > balance off the load a bit ... which helped alot. But am wondering if > there is an "acceptable tps level" for a drive before you should look at > moving things around ? Well, if you assume that each transfer requires a seek, and you know the average seek time of your drive, you'll be about to figure out the number of transfers per second your drive can do (assuming each transfer requires a seek). If you are using SCSI drives with tagged command queues, you can use camcontrol to see how many pending commands there are. > Marc G. Fournier scrappy@hub.org > Systems Administrator @ hub.org > scrappy@{postgresql|isc}.org ICQ#7615664 Tom To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-scsi" in the body of the message