On 6-Jan-09, at 1:19 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Jacob Ritorto wrote:
>
>> Is urandom nonblocking?
>
> The OS provided random devices need to be secure and so they depend on
> collecting "entropy" from the system so the random values are truely
> random. They also execute co
> Yes, iozone does support threading. Here is a test with a record size of
> 8KB, eight threads, synchronous writes, and a 2GB test file:
>
>Multi_buffer. Work area 16777216 bytes
>OPS Mode. Output is in operations per second.
>Record Size 8 KB
>SYNC Mode.
>
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Jacob Ritorto wrote:
> I have that iozone program loaded, but its results were rather cryptic
> for me. Is it adequate if I learn how to decipher the results? Can
> it thread out and use all of my CPUs?
Yes, iozone does support threading. Here is a test with a record size
I have that iozone program loaded, but its results were rather cryptic
for me. Is it adequate if I learn how to decipher the results? Can
it thread out and use all of my CPUs?
> Do you have tools to do random I/O exercises?
>
> --
> Darren
___
zfs-di
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 08:44:01AM -0800, Jacob Ritorto wrote:
> Is this increase explicable / expected? The throughput calculator
> sheet output I saw seemed to forecast better iops with the striped
> raidz vdevs and I'd read that, generally, throughput is augmented by
> keeping the number of vd
OK, so use a real io test program or at least pre-generate files large
enough to exceed RAM caching?
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Bob Friesenhahn
wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Jacob Ritorto wrote:
>
>> Is urandom nonblocking?
>
> The OS provided random devices need to be secure and so they de
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Jacob Ritorto wrote:
> Is urandom nonblocking?
The OS provided random devices need to be secure and so they depend on
collecting "entropy" from the system so the random values are truely
random. They also execute complex code to produce the random numbers.
As a result, bot
On Jan 6, 2009, at 11:12 AM 1/6/, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Keith Bierman wrote:
>
>> Do you get the same sort of results from /dev/random?
>
> /dev/random is very slow and should not be used for benchmarking.
>
Not directly, no. But copying from /dev/random to a real file an
Is urandom nonblocking?
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Bob Friesenhahn
wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Keith Bierman wrote:
>
>> Do you get the same sort of results from /dev/random?
>
> /dev/random is very slow and should not be used for benchmarking.
>
> Bob
> ==
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Keith Bierman wrote:
> Do you get the same sort of results from /dev/random?
/dev/random is very slow and should not be used for benchmarking.
Bob
==
Bob Friesenhahn
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Jacob Ritorto wrote:
> My OpenSolaris 2008/11 PC seems to attain better throughput with one
> big sixteen-device RAIDZ2 than with four stripes of 4-device RAIDZ.
> I know it's by no means an exhaustive test, but catting /dev/zero to
> a file in the pool now frequently exceed
On Jan 6, 2009, at 9:44 AM 1/6/, Jacob Ritorto wrote:
> but catting /dev/zero to a file in the pool now f
Do you get the same sort of results from /dev/random?
I wouldn't be surprised if /dev/zero turns out to be a special case.
Indeed, using any of the special files is probably not ideal.
12 matches
Mail list logo
