Here are the bonnie results...
This is the "beefy" machine
-------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
100 12991 100.0 105984 99.4 13171 8.2 15454 99.8 536628 99.6
480.1 2.5
This is the puny machine:
-------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
100 6021 98.1 91309 25.9 4779 1.0 6176 99.5 1457838 99.7
50186.3 62.7
> Hm, you said SCSI Raid - that can mean alot.
> Could you run a good old bonnie on both boxes and compare the numbers?
> One thing that comes to mind when I hear such things is a system with
> disk write cache disabled. Now, if you have a raid controller without
> battery backed cache, your vendor will hopefully disable write cache on
> the controller and also disable WCE bit on the drives. That way it will
> perform very poorly but be as secure as possible.
>
> Simon
>
---
Cyrus Home Page: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus
Cyrus Wiki/FAQ: http://cyruswiki.andrew.cmu.edu
List Archives/Info: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus/mailing-list.html
