From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Wed, 26 Sep 2007 10:13:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web32913.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web32913.mail.mud.yahoo.com [209.191.69.113]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id l8QHD94Q026622 for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2007 10:13:11 -0700 Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 10:13:08 -0700 (PDT) From: "Bryan J. Smith" Reply-To: b.j.smith@ieee.org Subject: Re: [UNSURE] Re: mkfs options for a 16x hw raid5 and xfs (mostly large files) In-Reply-To: <20070926165412.GE30287@p15145560.pureserver.info> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <295084.46754.qm@web32913.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Ralf Gross , linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com Ralf Gross wrote: > Still 170-200 MB/s. The command above just tunes the read ahead > value. Don't expect your commits to an external subsystem to be anywhere near as fast as software RAID in simple disk benchmarks. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, Technical Annoyance b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com -------------------------------------------------- Fission Power: An Inconvenient Solution