From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Jun 17 5:52:36 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from ns.oeno.com (ns.oeno.com [194.100.99.145]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CEF5C15378 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 05:52:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from will@ns.oeno.com) Received: (qmail 4029 invoked by uid 1001); 17 Jun 1999 12:52:31 -0000 To: grog@lemis.com (Greg Lehey) Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: vinum performance References: <199906170743.DAA16929@cs.rpi.edu> <19990617183225.Q9893@freebie.lemis.com> From: Ville-Pertti Keinonen Date: 17 Jun 1999 15:50:10 +0300 In-Reply-To: grog@lemis.com's message of "17 Jun 1999 12:02:50 +0300" Message-ID: <86r9nbq9dp.fsf@not.demophon.com> Lines: 22 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/XEmacs 20.4 - "Emerald" Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG grog@lemis.com (Greg Lehey) writes: > > You've accidentally striped subdisks on the same drive? ;--) > > > > Like Greg Lehey said, you haven't really provided enough details. > > He did provide one detail, though; this is a concatenated plex, not a > striped one. Or he at least *thinks* it's concatenated. ;--) I didn't miss that - but given numbers that bad, it sounds like there might be some really silly mistake involved. > > Many disks are shipped with write caching disabled, and write > > performance can be significantly worse than read performance. > > Not if it works without Vinum. My thought was that he might be comparing read performance and write performance (they are often pretty close). But even so, the difference shouldn't be *that* big. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message