On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 09:15 -0400, Maxim Khitrov wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 6:37 AM, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> > On 14 July 2016 at 14:54, Maxim Khitrov wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:47 PM, Tinker wrote:
> >>> On 2016-07-14 07:27, Maxim Khitrov wrote:
> >>> [...]
>
> No,
On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 6:37 AM, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> On 14 July 2016 at 14:54, Maxim Khitrov wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:47 PM, Tinker wrote:
>>> On 2016-07-14 07:27, Maxim Khitrov wrote:
>>> [...]
No, the tests are run sequentially. Write performance is measured
firs
On 07/20/16 04:20, Tinker wrote:
> It would be more interesting to get an idea of how a quality SSD such as
> how the Samsung PM953 / 850/950 PRO/EVO performs on various hardware
> with OpenBSD running bare-metal.
TL;DR no bonnie, but direct comparison of rotating rust vs ssd, on a
recent snapshot
On 2016-07-20 05:04, ML mail wrote:
Hi,
Here you are:
$ dd if=/dev/zero of=testfile bs=1M count=1000
1000+0 records in
1000+0 records out
1048576000 bytes transferred in 45.356 secs (23118558 bytes/sec)
Running OpenBSD 5.9 as domU on Xen 4.4 on DELL PowerEdge R410 with two
SATA disks in hardware
Hi,
Here you are:
$ dd if=/dev/zero of=testfile bs=1M count=1000
1000+0 records in
1000+0 records out
1048576000 bytes transferred in 45.356 secs (23118558 bytes/sec)
Running OpenBSD 5.9 as domU on Xen 4.4 on DELL PowerEdge R410 with two SATA
disks in hardware RAID1 on the dom0.
RegardsML
On 14 July 2016 at 14:54, Maxim Khitrov wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:47 PM, Tinker wrote:
>> On 2016-07-14 07:27, Maxim Khitrov wrote:
>> [...]
>>>
>>> No, the tests are run sequentially. Write performance is measured
>>> first (20 MB/s), then rewrite (12 MB/s), then read (37 MB/s), then
>
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:47 PM, Tinker wrote:
> On 2016-07-14 07:27, Maxim Khitrov wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> No, the tests are run sequentially. Write performance is measured
>> first (20 MB/s), then rewrite (12 MB/s), then read (37 MB/s), then
>> seeks (95 IOPS).
>
>
> Okay, you are on a totally wei
On 2016-07-14 07:27, Maxim Khitrov wrote:
[...]
No, the tests are run sequentially. Write performance is measured
first (20 MB/s), then rewrite (12 MB/s), then read (37 MB/s), then
seeks (95 IOPS).
Okay, you are on a totally weird platform. Or, on an OK platform with a
totally weird configurat
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Tinker wrote:
> On 2016-07-13 22:57, Maxim Khitrov wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Tinker wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2016-07-13 20:01, Maxim Khitrov wrote:
We're seeing about 20 MB/s write, 35 MB/s read, and 70 IOPS
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What do yo
On 2016-07-13 22:57, Maxim Khitrov wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Tinker wrote:
On 2016-07-13 20:01, Maxim Khitrov wrote:
We're seeing about 20 MB/s write, 35 MB/s read, and 70 IOPS
What do you mean 70, you mean 70 000 IOPS?
Sadly, no. It was actually 95, I looked at the wrong
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Tinker wrote:
> On 2016-07-13 20:01, Maxim Khitrov wrote:
>>
>> We're seeing about 20 MB/s write, 35 MB/s read, and 70 IOPS
>
>
> What do you mean 70, you mean 70 000 IOPS?
Sadly, no. It was actually 95, I looked at the wrong column before:
Write (K/sec), %cpu,
> We're seeing about 20 MB/s write, 35 MB/s read, and 70 IOPS with
> OpenBSD 5.9 amd64 on XenServer 7.0 (tested using bonnie++). The
> virtual disks are LVM over iSCSI. Linux hosts get well over 100 MB/s
> in both directions.
>
> I'm assuming that this is because there is no disk driver for Xen ye
Hi all,
We're seeing about 20 MB/s write, 35 MB/s read, and 70 IOPS with
OpenBSD 5.9 amd64 on XenServer 7.0 (tested using bonnie++). The
virtual disks are LVM over iSCSI. Linux hosts get well over 100 MB/s
in both directions.
I'm assuming that this is because there is no disk driver for Xen yet,
13 matches
Mail list logo
