On Sun, 1 Dec 2002 07:04, Eric Jennings wrote:
> Can you give us a command to call (using bonnie++ binaries) that will
> give a more real-world test of filesystem and disk performance? I'd
> like to see how bonnie++ differs from hdparm in results.
Even if you just run "bonnie++" with no parameter
Hi Russell-
Can you give us a command to call (using bonnie++ binaries) that will
give a more real-world test of filesystem and disk performance? I'd
like to see how bonnie++ differs from hdparm in results.
Thanks-
Eric
On Sun, 1 Dec 2002 00:30, Thomas Kirk wrote:
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 0
On Sun, 1 Dec 2002 00:30, Thomas Kirk wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 05:07:16PM +0100, Nicolas Bougues wrote:
> > You should probably try to time the disk reads, not the buffer cache...
> >
> > hdparm -t
>
> Yes the disk reads is a more realistic real world test :
>
> /dev/sda5:
> Timing buffer-
tions.
Sincerely,
Jason
http://www.zentek-international.com/
- Original Message -
From: "Bulent Murtezaoglu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2002 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: SCSI or IDE
> >>>>> "TH" == Thomas
> "TH" == Thomas Kirk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
TH> /dev/sdb5: Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 0.95 seconds
TH> =134.74 MB/sec
TH> /dev/sdb5: Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 3.42 seconds =
TH> 18.71 MB/sec
TH> When it comes to real world test my scsibased
On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 12:30:16AM +0100, Thomas Kirk wrote:
> Yes the disk reads is a more realistic real world test :
>
> /dev/sda5:
> Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 1.23 seconds =104.07 MB/sec
> guf:~# hdparm -t /dev/sda5
>
> /dev/sda5:
> Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 5.84
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 05:07:16PM +0100, Nicolas Bougues wrote:
> You should probably try to time the disk reads, not the buffer cache...
>
> hdparm -t
Yes the disk reads is a more realistic real world test :
/dev/sda5:
Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 1.23 seconds =104.07 MB/sec
guf:~
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 07:32:52AM -0800, Eric Jennings wrote:
> http://www.3ware.com/products/benchmarks.asp
>
>
> My real world tests below:
>
> # hdparm -T /dev/sda1
>
> /dev/sda1:
> Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 1.01 seconds =126.73 MB/sec
>
You should probably try to time the
> For what it's worth, I'm running a 3Ware 6410 card (4 port IDE RAID-5
with three 60 GB 7200 drives) on our development server, and it works
flawlessly. One of the nice features is that it can support email
notification of array rebuilds and drive issues/failures, so it's
easy to keep on to
Hep
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 10:47:54PM -0800, Eric Jennings wrote:
> For what it's worth, I'm running a 3Ware 6410 card (4 port IDE RAID-5
> with three 60 GB 7200 drives) on our development server, and it works
> flawlessly. One of the nice features is that it can support email
> notification
For what it's worth, I'm running a 3Ware 6410 card (4 port IDE RAID-5
with three 60 GB 7200 drives) on our development server, and it works
flawlessly. One of the nice features is that it can support email
notification of array rebuilds and drive issues/failures, so it's
easy to keep on top of
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 08:16:51AM +0100, Thomas Lamy wrote:
> Thomas Kirk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> >
> > Hep
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 11:57:33AM +1300, Jones, Steven wrote:
> >
> > > u can get hot swap ide
> > >
> > > promise do one (hot swap ide), dunno how good it is mind.
Hello Russell
On 28 Nov 2002 at 13:52, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:15, I. Forbes wrote:
> > - If you have a "glitch" on a drive the raid will mark the partition
> > as defective possibly when there is no permanent damage. You have to
> > reboot the server before you can attempt
In fact modern SCSI disks are a little bit faster (the 15000 rpm versions).
But they are much more expensive. We solved the problem with RAID-boxes
from EasyRAID. IDE disks input with hot plugging support and RAID 5 and
a SCSI connector. In the machine there's the corresponding SCSI controller
(may
On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:15, I. Forbes wrote:
> - If you have a "glitch" on a drive the raid will mark the partition
> as defective possibly when there is no permanent damage. You have to
> reboot the server before you can attempt to bring this partition back
> on line. Once rebooted you can attempt
oker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, 28 November 2002 1:35
> To: Jones, Steven; 'Thomas Kirk'
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: SCSI or IDE
>
>
> On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 23:30, Jones, Steven wrote:
> >
> http://www.promise.com/product/product_de
Hep
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 04:07:42PM +1100, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> That sounds very crappy... I'm not familiar with this product and it's
> drivers. From the kernel side, does it look like IDE or something else? If
> it looks like IDE, are you actualy using UDMA? The Debian kernels default to
On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 22:21, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 02:15, Jones, Steven wrote:
> > If you lose the primary boot disk on software raid its not bootable in my
> > experience.
>
> That's often the case. If the disk entirely dies then the BIOS should be
> able to boot from the other
On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 02:15, Jones, Steven wrote:
> If you lose the primary boot disk on software raid its not bootable in my
> experience.
That's often the case. If the disk entirely dies then the BIOS should be able
to boot from the other disk, but if the disk partially fails then it'll
probabl
Thomas Kirk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
>
> Hep
>
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 11:57:33AM +1300, Jones, Steven wrote:
>
> > u can get hot swap ide
> >
> > promise do one (hot swap ide), dunno how good it is mind.
>
> If you are thinking on this one ->
> http://www.promise.com/product/produ
> On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 23:30, Jones, Steven wrote:
> >
http://www.promise.com/product/product_detail_eng.asp?productId=93&familyI
d
> >= 7
> >
> > i was actually looking at one of these.
> >
> > For my simpler needs, data protection is important but there isnt lots
of
> > it so 2 x 20 gig disks mirr
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 10:09:48PM +0100, Thomas Kirk wrote:
> Hep
>
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 11:57:33AM +1300, Jones, Steven wrote:
[...]
> If you are thinking on this one ->
> http://www.promise.com/product/product_detail_eng.asp?productId=90&familyId=6
>
> Dont buy it! It as simple as that. 1
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, 28 November 2002 1:35
To: Jones, Steven; 'Thomas Kirk'
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: SCSI or IDE
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 23:30, Jones, Steven wrote:
>
http://www.promise.com/product/product_detail_eng.asp?productId=93&familyId
>= 7
>
> i w
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 23:30, Jones, Steven wrote:
> http://www.promise.com/product/product_detail_eng.asp?productId=93&familyId
>= 7
>
> i was actually looking at one of these.
>
> For my simpler needs, data protection is important but there isnt lots of
> it so 2 x 20 gig disks mirrored is heaps. I
- Original Message -
From: "Jones, Steven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Thomas Kirk'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 2:30 PM
Subject: RE: SCSI or IDE
>
>
http://www.promise.com/product/p
cond hand scsi setup for the same dosh.
Steven
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Kirk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, 28 November 2002 10:10
To: Jones, Steven
Cc: 'John'; Scott; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: SCSI or IDE
Hep
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 11:57:33A
Hep
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 11:57:33AM +1300, Jones, Steven wrote:
> u can get hot swap ide
>
> promise do one (hot swap ide), dunno how good it is mind.
If you are thinking on this one ->
http://www.promise.com/product/product_detail_eng.asp?productId=90&familyId=6
Dont buy it! It as simple
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 06:13:47PM +0100, Toni Mueller wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 10:35:37AM -0800, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 06:56:34PM +0100, ? ? wrote:
> > > About performance - IDE still uses a lot of the CPU
> > now that most servers are far fa
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 18:22, Toni Mueller wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 11:45:21PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > When you've had a repair-man from the vendor use a hammer to install a
> > CPU you learn to accept that any hardware can be broken no matter how
> > well it's installed.
>
> did he al
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 11:45:21PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
> When you've had a repair-man from the vendor use a hammer to install a CPU you
> learn to accept that any hardware can be broken no matter how well it's
> installed.
did he also use a chainsaw to cut his finger nails?
> Yes.
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 10:35:37AM -0800, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 06:56:34PM +0100, ? ? wrote:
> > About performance - IDE still uses a lot of the CPU
> now that most servers are far faster than that, we're talking about
> what, 1% or maybe 2% of the CPU?
on m
> If you want reliable IDE's get Quantum (whups... they don't exist
anymore),
> IBM (whups again... they shut down after they built a paperweight
factory in
> Hungary?), or Segate... perhaps Maxtor (bought out Quantum didn't
they?).
Thing with IBM HDs, in my experience, is that some are good from
>
> pps: last time i needed to build a large raid array for a fileserver, i
> priced both IDE and SCSI solutions. the SCSI solution was about $15000
> all up (server, external drive box, drives, raid controller, etc). the
> equivalent IDE solution was about $13000. i ended up deciding that scsi
At 05:39 PM 11/24/2002 -0500, John wrote:
I currently work with an ISP that has mostly IDE on the servers doing
miscellaneous stuff, all SCSI RAID5 on the servers such as database, NFS
and network monitoring. I just like being able to pull a drive hot and
replace it nice and easy in the servers th
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 00:54, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> I'm pretty sure most device drivers for both IDE and SCSI do some degree of
> command-reordering before issuing the commands down the buss. I wonder how
> much real-world benefit can be gained from drive-level command re-ordering,
> and how many SC
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 12:29:11AM +0100, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-11-25 10:17:44 +1100, Donovan Baarda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 08:45:04PM +0100, Emilio Brambilla wrote:
> > > hello,
> > > On Sun, 24 Nov 2002, Russell Co
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 09:14:14PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
> 3ware RAID arrays are affordable and deliver quite satisfactory
> performance. Usually they are limited by PCI speeds (last time I
> checked they didn't support 66MHz 64bit PCI).
the key is that you need to use cards like these if y
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 05:39:53PM -0500, John wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 12:38:56PM -0500, Scott wrote:
> > After some talks with the person who handles the books she has given me
> > the authority to bail on these Netfinity boxes and get something more
> > supported by Debian. My questio
On Mon, 2002-11-25 10:17:44 +1100, Donovan Baarda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 08:45:04PM +0100, Emilio Brambilla wrote:
> > hello,
> > On Sun, 24 Nov 2002, Russell Coker wrote:
> [...]
> > SCSI can queue up to 256 commands and reorder them for
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 08:45:04PM +0100, Emilio Brambilla wrote:
> hello,
> On Sun, 24 Nov 2002, Russell Coker wrote:
[...]
> ATA/IDE drives/controllers lack the ability to perform "command queuing",
> so they are not much fast on many concurrent i/o requests (this feature
> will be introduced in
On Sun, 24 Nov 2002 23:39, John wrote:
> There's quite little point in having IDE for my work on the most mission
> critical servers. We also have a habit of netbooting many of our
> machines. POP/SMTP/HTTP/HTTPS/DNS are done via netboot. This reduces our
> reliance on drives in tons of systems.
I
u can get hot swap ide
promise do one (hot swap ide), dunno how good it is mind.
Thing
8><--
I currently work with an ISP that has mostly IDE on the servers doing
miscellaneous stuff, all SCSI RAID5 on the servers such as database, NFS
and network monitoring. I just like being able to
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 12:38:56PM -0500, Scott wrote:
> After some talks with the person who handles the books she has given me
> the authority to bail on these Netfinity boxes and get something more
> supported by Debian. My question is: with IDE drives as fast as they are
> now does it real
On Sun, 24 Nov 2002 22:13, Vector wrote:
> > > You can put a lot more disks on a single SCSI
> > > controler, than on a IDE controler, and there (afaik, i could be
> > > mistaken) two drives on one bus cannot work simultaneously and share
> > > the bandwidth (which isn't a problem with SCSI, if you
- Original Message -
From: Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Emilio Brambilla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: SCSI or IDE
> Organizations such as CERN are using IDE disks for multi-terabyte array
- Original Message -
From: Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Âàñèë Êîëåâ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: SCSI or IDE
> > You can put a lot more disks on a single SCSI
> > controler, than
I can tell you that for the last 10 years, I've been using all SCSI
equipment in all the systems I've built. I have yet to be disappointed with
the the stuff even though it tends to cost more. They are MUCH more
flexibility than IDE systems, and despite all the additions to IDE like
DMA/UDMA, etc
On Sun, 24 Nov 2002 20:45, Emilio Brambilla wrote:
> > IDE and SCSI give very similar performance. Performance is determined by
> > hardware issues such as rotational speed rather than the type of
> > interface.
>
> I agree if you think at a single drive workstation, not if you think at a
> server
hello,
On Sun, 24 Nov 2002, Russell Coker wrote:
> IDE and SCSI give very similar performance. Performance is determined by
> hardware issues such as rotational speed rather than the type of interface.
I agree if you think at a single drive workstation, not if you think at a
server with many di
On Sun, 24 Nov 2002 18:56, Âàñèë Êîëåâ wrote:
> About performance - IDE still uses a lot of the CPU, SCSI has it's own
> processing power.
Please do some benchmarks. You'll discover that when DMA is enabled and you
have a good chipset then IDE will not use much CPU.
OTOH if you have an Adaptec
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 06:38, Scott wrote:
> After some talks with the person who handles the books she has given me
> the authority to bail on these Netfinity boxes and get something more
> supported by Debian. My question is: with IDE drives as fast as they are
> now does it really pay to go SCSI?
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 06:56:34PM +0100, ? ? wrote:
>
> About performance - IDE still uses a lot of the CPU
IMHO that argument made a lot more sense when we had 300MHz CPUs. But
now that most servers are far faster than that, we're talking about
what, 1% or maybe 2% of the CPU?
It's pro
About performance - IDE still uses a lot of the CPU, SCSI has it's own
processing power. You can put a lot more disks on a single SCSI
controler, than on a IDE controler, and there (afaik, i could be
mistaken) two drives on one bus cannot work simultaneously and share the
bandwidth (which isn't a p
On Sun, 24 Nov 2002 18:38, Scott wrote:
> After some talks with the person who handles the books she has given me
> the authority to bail on these Netfinity boxes and get something more
> supported by Debian. My question is: with IDE drives as fast as they are
> now does it really pay to go SCSI?
54 matches
Mail list logo
