Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:09:52 +1000 From: Danny Carroll <fbsd@dannysplace.net> To: Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@digiware.nl> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Jeremy Chadwick <koitsu@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Areca vs. ZFS performance testing. Message-ID: <491C0B00.4030408@dannysplace.net> In-Reply-To: <491BE632.1020801@IMAP> References: <490A782F.9060406@dannysplace.net> <20081031033208.GA21220@icarus.home.lan> <490A849C.7030009@dannysplace.net> <20081031043412.GA22289@icarus.home.lan> <490A8FAD.8060009@dannysplace.net> <491BBF38.9010908@dannysplace.net> <491BE632.1020801@IMAP>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Good idea. Actually, what I will do eventually is *also* post the results to the mailing list. It will probably be around long after my own server is gone. -D Willem Jan Withagen wrote: > Danny Carroll wrote: >> Danny Carroll wrote: >>> Jeremy Chadwick wrote: >>>> I'd like to see the performance difference between these scenarios: >>>> >>>> - Memory cache enabled on Areca, write caching enabled on disks >>>> - Memory cache enabled on Areca, write caching disabled on disks >>>> - Memory cache disabled on Areca, write caching enabled on disks >>>> - Memory cache disabled on Areca, write caching disabled on disks >>>> >> >> >> The initial results for a ICH9 vs Areca in JBod mode can be found here: >> http://www.dannysplace.net/ZFS-JBODTests.html > > Just as a polite question, since I'm very much in favor doing > benchmarking and do appreciate these kinds of test. > > You might want to add an introductory page to your results describing > how you setup the test: > Details of the hardware > Details of the disk setup > possible version and options with bonnie > The script you used.... > > This would allow others to redo your experiment and try to figure out > why their numbers are different. > > --WjW > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?491C0B00.4030408>