Re: Bit off topic : It should go faster than this...

rlro99_at_hotmail.com (Ralph) wrote in message news:<e2c49cae.0306120602.2e6a5c66_at_posting.google.com>...
>
> The cluster size used was 4k. As far as aggregate rate of 160mb/s that
> is true, though I have two of these cards each with a 26 disk raid 1+0
> array. I am copying the file from one array to the next, so one card
> and array only seems capable of writing at 80mb/s. Or about 6mb/s per
> spindle...thats the fastest disk I could buy....doesn't seem right to
> me on a sequential disk write of 2gb.

Hmmm, a few more points. You have 26 disk array, but on each shelf there are only 13 active (with one spare). And it's not clear how they are connected to the array controllers. There may well be an issue there. RAID1+0 is faster only if the "1" bit is not spanning the same disk and controller/shelf. Look into how this is setup?

It sounds like very little (6Mb/s) per disk. I can write-only that fast with my single controller, single disk box. Of course, if I also have to read then all heck breaks loose. Something is weird.

Another thing to try is t use a larger cluster size. If the files you're storing are large-ish.

I'm afraid ther eis no easy solution other than digging in to the details.

HTH Cheers
Nuno Souto
wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam Received on Thu Jun 12 2003 - 19:31:09 CDT