> suspect, particularly with 7200/min (s)ATA crap.
Quoting myself (again):
>> A quick'n'dirty ZFS-vs-UFS-vs-Reiser3-vs-Reiser4-vs-Ext3 'benchmark'
Yeah, the test ran on a single SATA-Harddisk (quick'n'dirty).
I'm so sorry but i don't have access to a $$$ Raid-System at home.
Anyway: The test shows us that Reiser4 performed very good on my
(common 0-8-15) hardware.
> sdparm --clear=WCE /dev/sda # please.
How about using /dev/emcpower* for the next benchmark?
I mighty be able to re-run it in a few weeks if people are interested
and if i receive constructive suggestions (= Postmark parameters,
mkfs options, etc..)
Regards,
Adrian
Adrian Ulrich schrieb am 2006-08-01:
> > suspect, particularly with 7200/min (s)ATA crap.
>
> Quoting myself (again):
> >> A quick'n'dirty ZFS-vs-UFS-vs-Reiser3-vs-Reiser4-vs-Ext3 'benchmark'
>
> Yeah, the test ran on a single SATA-Harddisk (quick'n'dirty).
> I'm so sorry but i don't have access to a $$$ Raid-System at home.
I'm not asking for you to perform testing on a $$$$ RAID system with
SCSI or SAS, but I consider the obtained data (I am focussing on
transactions per unit of time) highly suspicious, and suspect write
caches might have contributed their share - I haven't seen a drive that
shipped with write cache disabled in the past years.
> > sdparm --clear=WCE /dev/sda # please.
>
> How about using /dev/emcpower* for the next benchmark?
No, it is valid to run the test on commodity hardware, but if you (or
the benchmark rather) is claiming "transactions", I tend to think
"ACID", and I highly doubt any 200 GB SATA drive manages 3000
synchronous writes per second without causing either serious
fragmentation or background block moving.
This is a figure I'd expect for synchronous random access to RAM disks
that have no seek and rotational latencies (and research for hybrid
disks w/ flash or other nonvolatile fast random access media to cache
actual rotating magnetic plattern access is going on elsewhere).
I didn't mean to say your particular drive were crap, but 200GB SATA
drives are low end, like it or not -- still, I have one in my home
computer because these Samsung SP2004C are so nicely quiet.
> I mighty be able to re-run it in a few weeks if people are interested
> and if i receive constructive suggestions (= Postmark parameters,
> mkfs options, etc..)
I don't know Postmark, I did suggest to turn the write cache off. If
your systems uses hdparm -W0 /dev/sda instead, go ahead. But you're
right to collect and evaluate suggestions first if you don't want to run
a new benchmark every day :)
--
Matthias Andree
Matthias Andree wrote:
>
> No, it is valid to run the test on commodity hardware, but if you (or
> the benchmark rather) is claiming "transactions", I tend to think
> "ACID", and I highly doubt any 200 GB SATA drive manages 3000
> synchronous writes per second without causing either serious
> fragmentation or background block moving.
>
You are assuming 1 transaction = 1 sync write. That's not true.
Databases and log filesystems can get much more out of a disk write.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
>
>I didn't mean to say your particular drive were crap, but 200GB SATA
>drives are low end, like it or not --
And you think an 18 GB SCSI disk just does it better because it's SCSI?
Esp. in long sequential reads.
Jan Engelhardt
--
Jan Engelhardt schrieb am 2006-08-01:
> >I didn't mean to say your particular drive were crap, but 200GB SATA
> >drives are low end, like it or not --
>
> And you think an 18 GB SCSI disk just does it better because it's SCSI?
18 GB SCSI disks are 1999 gear, so who cares?
Seagate didn't sell 200 GB SATA drives at that time.
> Esp. in long sequential reads.
You think SCSI drives aren't on par? Right, they're ahead.
98 MB/s for the fastest SCSI drives vs. 88 MB/s for Raptor 150 GB SATA
and 74 MB/s for the fastest other ATA drives.
(Figures obtained from StorageReview.com's Performance Database.)
--
Matthias Andree
>> >I didn't mean to say your particular drive were crap, but 200GB SATA
>> >drives are low end, like it or not --
>>
>> And you think an 18 GB SCSI disk just does it better because it's SCSI?
>
>18 GB SCSI disks are 1999 gear, so who cares?
>Seagate didn't sell 200 GB SATA drives at that time.
>
>> Esp. in long sequential reads.
>
>You think SCSI drives aren't on par? Right, they're ahead.
>98 MB/s for the fastest SCSI drives vs. 88 MB/s for Raptor 150 GB SATA
>and 74 MB/s for the fastest other ATA drives.
Uhuh. And how do they measure that? Did they actually ran sth like...
dd_rescue /dev/hda /dev/null
Jan Engelhardt
--