From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Wed, 26 Sep 2007 10:08:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web32908.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web32908.mail.mud.yahoo.com [209.191.69.108]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id l8QH8Qdl025458 for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2007 10:08:28 -0700 Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 10:08:25 -0700 (PDT) From: "Bryan J. Smith" Reply-To: b.j.smith@ieee.org Subject: Re: mkfs options for a 16x hw raid5 and xfs (mostly large files) In-Reply-To: <20070926151534.GD30287@p15145560.pureserver.info> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <696865.53046.qm@web32908.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: > You're right, but these benchmarks help to find simple failures or > misconfigurations at an earlier stage of the process. Yes, as long as you are comparing to a benchmark of a known, similar quantity. It's not uncommon for Linux's RAID-5 to be 2-3x faster at dd and single file operations, especially if there are no, actual parity operations. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, Technical Annoyance b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com -------------------------------------------------- Fission Power: An Inconvenient Solution