From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 13 11:09:32 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDD9D1065689; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:09:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd@dannysplace.net) Received: from mail.dannysplace.net (mail.dannysplace.net [213.133.54.210]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2C308FC0A; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:09:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd@dannysplace.net) Received: from 203-206-171-212.perm.iinet.net.au ([203.206.171.212] helo=[192.168.10.10]) by mail.dannysplace.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1L0a4o-000KWE-0I; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:09:31 +1000 Message-ID: <491C0B00.4030408@dannysplace.net> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:09:52 +1000 From: Danny Carroll User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Willem Jan Withagen 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> In-Reply-To: <491BE632.1020801@IMAP> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated-User: danny X-Authenticator: plain X-Sender-Verify: SUCCEEDED (sender exists & accepts mail) X-Exim-Version: 4.69 (build at 08-Jul-2008 08:59:40) X-Date: 2008-11-13 21:09:30 X-Connected-IP: 203.206.171.212:3604 X-Message-Linecount: 55 X-Body-Linecount: 40 X-Message-Size: 2035 X-Body-Size: 1246 X-Received-Count: 1 X-Recipient-Count: 4 X-Local-Recipient-Count: 4 X-Local-Recipient-Defer-Count: 0 X-Local-Recipient-Fail-Count: 0 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 203.206.171.212 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: wjw@digiware.nl, freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, koitsu@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: fbsd@dannysplace.net X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on ferrari.dannysplace.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=8.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,TVD_RCVD_IP autolearn=disabled version=3.2.5 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail.dannysplace.net) Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Jeremy Chadwick , freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Areca vs. ZFS performance testing. X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: fbsd@dannysplace.net List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:09:33 -0000 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 > >