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

"Noons" <wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam> wrote in message news:<3ee731e2$0$8986$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>...
> "Ralph" <rlro99_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e2c49cae.0306110515.4ebe8c86_at_posting.google.com...
> >
> > When all this was set up I got the boys who configured it to copy a
> > 2gb file from one array to the other. Now I think that 24 secs is
> > pretty slow and would have thought 4-8 secs would be more like it. 24
> > secs indicates an actual write speed of approx 80mb/s.
>
> What was the cluster size (on format) of the partitions
> in question? You need 8K to really get things flying.
> Also: I hate to rain on your 80Mb/s, but don't forget
> you're processing 2Gb twice: once to read it, the other
> to write. So, your aggregate rate is more like 160Mb/s.
>
> Which is not bad at all.

Thanks for your reply.

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.

Cheers

Ralph Received on Thu Jun 12 2003 - 09:02:33 CDT