Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 15:57:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 15:57:08 -0500 Received: from neon-gw.transmeta.com ([209.10.217.66]:24080 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 15:57:02 -0500 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: torvalds@transmeta.com (Linus Torvalds) Subject: Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's Date: 2 Mar 2001 12:56:52 -0800 Organization: Transmeta Corporation Message-ID: <97p1ek$10t$1@penguin.transmeta.com> In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In article , Jeremy Hansen wrote: > >The SCSI adapter on the raid array is an Adaptec 39160, the raid >controller is a CMD-7040. Kernel 2.4.0 using XFS for the filesystem on >the raid array, kernel 2.2.18 on ext2 on the IDE drive. The filesystem is >not the problem, as I get almost the exact same results running this on >ext2 on the raid array. Did you try a 2.4.x kernel on both? 2.4.0 has a bad elevator, which may show problems, so please check 2.4.2 if the numbers change. Also, "fsync()" is very different indeed on 2.2.x and 2.4.x, and I would not be 100% surprised if your IDE drive does asynchronous write caching and your RAID does not... That would not show up in bonnie. Also note how your bonnie file remove numbers for IDE seem to be much better than for your RAID array, so it is not impossible that your RAID unit just has a _huge_ setup overhead but good throughput, and that the IDE numbers are better simply because your IDE setup is much lower latency. Never mistake throughput for _speed_. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/