From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262686AbUBNSU5 (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 Feb 2004 13:20:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262794AbUBNSU5 (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 Feb 2004 13:20:57 -0500 Received: from c-24-19-70-33.client.comcast.net ([24.19.70.33]:19076 "EHLO waltsathlon.localhost.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262686AbUBNSU4 (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 Feb 2004 13:20:56 -0500 From: Walt H To: miller@techsource.com Subject: Re: File system performance, hardware performance, ext3, 3ware RAID1, etc. Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 10:16:51 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.6 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200402141016.51205.waltabbyh@comcast.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 06:32:31PM -0500, Timothy Miller wrote: > For writes, iozone found an upper bound of about 10megs/sec, which is > abysmal. Typically, I'd expect writes to be faster (on a single drive) > than reads, because once the write is sent, you can forget about it. > You don't have to wait around for something to come back, and that > latency for reads can hurt performance. The OS can also buffer writes > and reorder them in order to improve efficiency. I'm joining this thread rather late, so perhaps I missed something. What hardware is the test being ran on? I have an AMD MPX based setup which suffers from a chipset bug which effectively limits writes to ~25MB/sec to devices connected via the 768 southbridge. Maybe something similar with your hardware? -Walt