On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 09:10:22AM -0700, eric kustarz wrote: > > On Jun 3, 2008, at 9:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 03:32:47PM -0700, eric kustarz wrote: > >> > >>On May 29, 2008, at 11:44 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>>[...] > >>> > >>>I remember another hardware arrays (yes, two arrays) test where > >>>vdbench shows > >>>that one array is a bit faster (more IOPS) then the other. While > >>>filebench (which tries to simulate the real workloads) shows that > >>>that > >>>the other aray is slightly faster. What is true ? I don't know. > >>>But I > >>>wouldn't like to use just one tool. Both has its advantages and > >>>disadvantages. And _both_ give much wider picture of how the storage > >>>behaves in particular workload. > >> > >>So that's disturbing. What workload were you running? > > > >OLTP > > Interesting, what version of vdbench did you run? How did you run a > OLTP workload with vdbench?
Eric, I thought you are asking about filebench. The OLTP workload was from filebench. Vdbench cannot do that. > What version of FileBench and what version of oltp.f did you run? Well, that is good question. IIRC it was 1.1.* But I don't bet my life though ... ;-) Regards przemol -- http://przemol.blogspot.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Podbij Dziki Zachod!Gra strategiczna online Sprawdz >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1dff _______________________________________________ perf-discuss mailing list perf-discuss@opensolaris.org
