I/O throughput analysis

[ted leslie]

if the raid card is good, i.e. 3ware, then the drives would be bottle neck.
I think the 3ware card test out max throughput at 12+ drive on raid 10.
Also depends on whether raid card has battery back up, write cache , etc,
but I think definitely the drives are still the bottle neck. In fact the
raid card may be able to work with even 16+ drives before
throughput starts to flatten out and makes for little benefit to put
more drives in.

tl

On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 2:28 PM, William Muriithi
<william.muriithi-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Hello pals,
>
> A workmate and I had an argument that we could not seem to agree on
> yesterday. That mean we did not learn anything from the discussion and
> I would like to hear your opinion on it. It could help make sense of
> each other arguments
>
> Which of these two systems would have a better input output
> performance?  Both system have the same configurations, CPU, chipset
> everything down the power supply. They differ though with the number
> of hard disk.  Both system has a RAID card with a maximum speed of 6
> GB per sec
>
> System A  has 6 drives. Each drive has a specification of 1500 RPM,
> 300 GB size SAS interface.
>
> System B has 8 drives.  Each drive is 146GB in size, 1500 RPM and also
> with a SAS interface.
>
> SAS interface can comfortably handle 3 GB per second.
>
> So, in your opinion, is the RAID card a potential bottleneck on both systems?
>
> Which of the two system would offer a better throughput ?
>
> Regards,
>
> William
> --
> The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
> TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
> How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists
>
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists