Articles: Storage
 

Bookmark and Share

(12) 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 ]

Emulating a user working in multiple applications, this test runs better on RAID0 arrays. The 3Ware 9650SE is not an exception. The RAID10 is quite competitive at a queue depth of 2, but the four-disk RAID0 has no rivals at long queue depths whereas the RAID10 is about as fast as the three-disk RAID0 then. Take note that the four-disk RAID0 is only faster than the three-disk RAID0 at queue depths longer than 2.

The two-disk RAID1 is almost as fast as the two-disk RAID0. RAID5 is not the right array type for this load. These arrays have low speed and low performance scalability.

The standings generally reflect the arrays’ performance at long queue depths although the RAID10 is slightly ahead of the three-disk RAID0 while the RAID1 arrays are slower than the same-size RAID0 arrays.

The reduction of the test zone to 32GB doesn’t lead to serious changes in the graphs: the above-mentioned trends have become more outlined and the speeds of the arrays have got higher.

There are but small changes in the standings of the arrays: the three-disk RAID0 almost catches up with the RAID10, and the four-disk RAID5 overtakes the RAID1.

 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 ]

Discussion

Comments currently: 12
Discussion started: 05/17/08 01:09:46 AM
Latest comment: 07/13/08 06:57:22 AM

View comments

Add your Comment