Subject: Re: RAIDframe performance revisited
To: None <tech-perform@NetBSD.org>
From: Matthias Scheler <tron@zhadum.de>
List: tech-perform
Date: 07/07/2005 11:47:05
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 01:36:43PM +0100, Matthias Scheler wrote:
> On this benchmark RAIDframe is suddenly a lot slower than the physical disks.
> What could cause this? Ideas which come to my mind are:
[...]
> - different FFS block layout on the physical disks vs. the RAIDframe volume
> because they report a different geometry ...
I've now changed the disklabel of "raid0" to match the one of my
physical disks:
tron@lyssa:~>disklabel raid0
disklabel: Invalid signature in mbr record 0
# /dev/rraid0d:
type: RAID
disk: raid
label: fictitious
flags:
bytes/sector: 512
sectors/track: 63
tracks/cylinder: 15
sectors/cylinder: 945
cylinders: 179747
total sectors: 169861760
rpm: 7200
interleave: 1
trackskew: 0
cylinderskew: 0
headswitch: 0 # microseconds
track-to-track seek: 0 # microseconds
drivedata: 0
4 partitions:
# size offset fstype [fsize bsize cpg/sgs]
c: 169860915 0 unused 0 0 # (Cyl. 0 - 179746)
d: 169860915 0 4.2BSD 1024 8192 46672 # (Cyl. 0 - 179746)
But extracting the source tar archives still takes twice as long as on
the physical disks.
Kind regards
--
Matthias Scheler http://scheler.de/~matthias/