Mikael Carneholm wrote:
>
> Btw, here's the bonnie++ results from two different array sets (10+18,
> 4+24) on the MSA1500:
>
>
> LUN: DATA, 24 disks, stripe size 64K
> -------------------------------------
> Version 1.03 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input-
> --Random-
> -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block--
> --Seeks--
> Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP
> /sec %CP
> sesell01 32G 59443 97 118515 39 25023 5 30926 49 60835 6
> 531.8 1
> ------Sequential Create------ --------Random
> Create--------
> -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read---
> -Delete--
> files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
> /sec %CP
> 16 2499 90 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ 2817 99 +++++ +++
> 10971 100
>
It might be interesting to see if 128K or 256K stripe size gives better
sequential throughput, while still leaving the random performance ok.
Having said that, the seeks/s figure of 531 not that great - for
instance I've seen a 12 disk (15K SCSI) system report about 1400 seeks/s
in this test.
Sorry if you mentioned this already - but what OS and filesystem are you
using? (if Linux and ext3, it might be worth experimenting with xfs or jfs).
Cheers
Mark
