Hey Greg,

I found some info in the port-i386 archives.

Keep in mind this is straight 1.4/i386 (I'd imagine a lot of work has been
done on raidframe since then), and this is just one specific combination of
hardware, so other peoples' mileage may vary.

Here's a quick summary of what i found (3d == 3 drives, 2d == 2 drives):

              -------Sequential Output-------- ---Sequential Input-- --Random--
              -Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks---
Machine    MB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU  /sec %CPU
raid 3d  1024  4161 52.3  7243 18.6  5257 28.6  6709 98.5 22017 86.0 115.7 7.3
raid 2d  1024  4313 52.7  6069 14.5  4746 21.9  6853 98.2 22192 84.9 109.6 6.3
ccd 3d   1024  8098 99.0 12413 34.1  7437 32.2  7163 99.4 25049 85.3 133.2 4.9
ccd 2d   1024  8113 98.8  8382 18.7  5455 22.4  7173 99.3 24776 83.0 119.1 4.3


I didn't try tweaking performance much for either device, so who knows if
either case is optimal for either driver.  Its just the number I got with
"similar" parameters when configuring the stripes.

The details are in 

http://mail-index.netbsd.org/port-i386/1999/06/28/0009.html

It would be interesting to see how the latest incarnation of raidframe
performs vs. ccd on my setup.  If I get some fresh hardware I'll try it out
and let you know, but at the moment everything I have is in heavy use.

erik


On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Greg Oster wrote:

> > Well, I lost all the data that I had saved (it was a while ago), but I swear
> > its true.  I think I have the numbers backed up offline somewhere if anyone is
> > interested.
> 
> If you happen to stumble across them sometime, I'd be interested in seeing 
> them... but don't make a special effort to get them.