From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stan Hoeppner Subject: Re: recommended way to add ssd cache to mdraid array Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 19:50:29 -0600 Message-ID: <50F4B5E5.30809@hardwarefreak.com> References: <201212212357.19292.thomas@fjellstrom.ca> <201301141122.15322.thomas@fjellstrom.ca> <50F46075.2090903@hardwarefreak.com> <201301141453.13819.thomas@fjellstrom.ca> Reply-To: stan@hardwarefreak.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <201301141453.13819.thomas@fjellstrom.ca> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: thomas@fjellstrom.ca Cc: Tommy Apel Hansen , Chris Murphy , linux-raid Raid List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 1/14/2013 3:53 PM, Thomas Fjellstrom wrote: > > random random bkwd record stride > KB reclen write rewrite read reread read write read rewrite read fwrite frewrite fread freread > 33554432 8192 124664 121973 524509 527971 376880 104357 336083 40088 392683 213941 215453 631122 631617 > > I assume that is to you liking? Yes, much better. Now, where is the output from the system you're comparing performance against? > As for the simple home server array, if it were so simple, it'd work out > of the box with no issues at all. It is working. And there are no issues, but for your subjective interpretation of the iozone data, assuming it is not working properly. This is why benchmarks of this sort are generally only good for comparing one system to another. -- Stan