From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mukul Kotwani Subject: Re: Performance Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 00:39:22 -0700 (PDT) Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20020804073922.39115.qmail@web14008.mail.yahoo.com> References: <10208032327.ZM1350371@classic.engr.sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: In-Reply-To: <10208032327.ZM1350371@classic.engr.sgi.com> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Jeremy Higdon Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Thanks for the reply Jeremy! Can you point me to the proper test which I can use to test it? I think I have pretty good servers and storage. What did u guys use..and was there any tuning of the OS required? For the IOPs, I guess it must have been the Windows cache then, because ths storage used was the same in both cases. Mukul --- Jeremy Higdon wrote: > We've seen about 15000 IOPS from a 2200 and nearly > 40000 from a 2310. > With the proper test and proper hardware, you ought > to see up to 102 MB/s > on disk reads with a 2200 and 204 MB/s with the 2300 > (10^6 MB). > > However, you may have trouble matching this in the > Linux block layer. > Perhaps if you try the sg driver with direct I/O . . > . . > > I question the 100% random results that you got from > Windows. 100% > random implies no cache hits, which would leave you > with the raw > IOPS that the drive can supply (260 sounds in the > right ballpark). > > It would be impossible for the drive to supply 7000 > IOPS in a > random workload. If you were supplying out of the > drive cache or > Windows cache, then 7000 seems more reasonable > (though perhaps not > a very interesting number). > > jeremy > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line > "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com