On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 07:41:41AM -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> > From: Daniel Carosone [mailto:d...@geek.com.au]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 11:05 PM
> >
> > the [sata] channel is idle, blocked on command completion, while
> > the heads seek.
>
> I'm interested in proving this point.
On Jun 19, 2011, at 6:04 AM, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
> Richard Elling wrote:
>> Actually, all of the data I've gathered recently shows that the number of
>> IOPS does not significantly increase for HDDs running random workloads.
>> However the response time does :-( My data is leading me to want to
On Jun 19, 2011, at 6:28 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>> From: Richard Elling [mailto:richard.ell...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 7:47 PM
>>
>> Actually, all of the data I've gathered recently shows that the number of
>> IOPS does not significantly increase for HDDs running random
> From: Richard Elling [mailto:richard.ell...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 7:47 PM
>
> Actually, all of the data I've gathered recently shows that the number of
> IOPS does not significantly increase for HDDs running random workloads.
> However the response time does :-(
Could you
Richard Elling wrote:
Actually, all of the data I've gathered recently shows that the number of
IOPS does not significantly increase for HDDs running random workloads.
However the response time does :-( My data is leading me to want to restrict
the queue depth to 1 or 2 for HDDs.
Thinking
