Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:24:43 +0300 From: Sergey Lungu <sergey.lungu@gmail.com> To: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GEOM stripe + concat Message-ID: <20060124232443.2e252b87.sergey.lungu@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20060122192257.273734cf.sergey.lungu@gmail.com> References: <20060122192257.273734cf.sergey.lungu@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:22:57 +0300 I wrote: > Hello, > > I have FreeBSD 6.0-RELEASE running on my FTP server. There are three > disks on that box: two identical 120GB and one 300GB. I am using > gvinum for stripping between first two disks. I am going to give > gstripe a try, sine gvinum is too unstable. Since nobody has answered my question, possibly it was too silly, I decided to experiment a bit. I'll answer my questions: > Am I able to concatenate created stripe with 300GB disk? Yes, you can! > And is it wise at all? I have made some simple benchmarking on three different geometries. Legend: a * b - stripping between a and b a + b - concatenation of a and b ad1 - 120GB disk ad2 - 120GB disk ad3 - 300GB disk I tried to upload and then download a 700MB movie. Here are my results: ad1 * ad2: Uploading: 1m8.406s Downloading: 1m4.656s ad1 * ad2 + ad3: Uploading: 1m4.115s Downloading: 1m4.962s ad1 + ad2 + ad3: Uploading: 1m4.110s Downloading: 1m4.971s Conclusion: There is no big difference between all this geometries in FTP context, or possibly there are some on high load!? -- Sergey Lungu Fuzzy project objectives are used to avoid the embarrassment of estimating the corresponding costs.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060124232443.2e252b87.sergey.lungu>