On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Joe Landman <land...@scalableinformatics.com> wrote: > Looks like your IOP latency is around 50ms. If you think about this, it > seems a little high, even for a RAID5. I'll do some measurements here on > our big units and we can compare.
Thanks again Joe! About the latency: It could have something to do with the fact that the overall latency on our network has been pretty crappy (I believe). Round trip ping-pong times in the 150 microsec range. Not sure. > 466 IOP is ok ... basically 4 drives will give you this (5 RAID5 drives -> 4 > drives of data). If you are IOP bound, you can do better, if this matters. Sure, I'd have to figure out *iff* I (or rather all my apps.) am IOP driven. Not sure, I don't have a good answer for you. Of course, maybe I am just missing a crucial simple step in figuring that out. Do let me know. On the other hand regarding our expansion plans: Our code is working OK on this client that has the 466 IOPS. Ergo any larger storage+network solution that can provide *at least* 466 IOPS ought to work for us. Of course, assuming IOP is a good metric in the first place. But that's back to the same point. -- Rahul _______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org sponsored by Penguin Computing To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
