From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Richard Scobie Subject: Re: Benchmarks: Linux Kernel RAID vs a Hardware RAID setup Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:01:08 +1200 Message-ID: <487D3A44.7000008@sauce.co.nz> References: <1216130769.5633.318.camel@sam.localdomain> <20080715163932.GA23164@rap.rap.dk> <8CAB4B2168C7183-B68-AD2@webmail-ng19.sysops.aol.com> <20080715173927.GA24745@rap.rap.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080715173927.GA24745@rap.rap.dk> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Keld_J=F8rn_Simonsen?= Cc: thomas62186218@aol.com, monkeyiq@users.sourceforge.net, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Keld J=F8rn Simonsen wrote: > I would actually welcome more tests with specific user profiles, like > many small reads and writes for database use, and concurrent random > reading and writing to simulate the load on a server. What bonnie++ i= s > reporting is only equential IO. This is important on work stations, b= ut > actually not on servers. The following is from the Bonnie++ man page: "There are two sections to the program's operations. The first is t= o=20 test the IO throughput in a fashion that is designed to simulate some= =20 types of database applications. The second is to test creation, reading= =20 and deleting many small files in a fashion similar to the usage pattern= s=20 of programs such as Squid or INN." So I guess the author thinks it's valid for more than sequential I/O. In any case, while we may be in a minority, Justin, I and a few others=20 are interested in sequential I/O, as we build servers required to read=20 and write multiple streams of uncompressed SD and HD video in realtime. Regards, Richard -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html