Articles: Storage
 

Bookmark and Share

(3) 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 ]

The next pattern imitates the work of the disk subsystem of a web server:

The graphs of the RAID0 arrays haven’t practically changed since the File Server pattern, while the speed of the RAID5 arrays has grown up significantly because the Web Server pattern with no write requests is the optimal operational mode for them. That’s also why the mirror RAID10 array becomes faster than the four-disk RAID0 in some cases. It uses the optimized mirror-reading algorithm, while RAID1 does not, as its results prove.

These are the ratings of the arrays, which we calculated according to the same rules as in the File Server pattern:

RAID10 and RAID5 arrays caught at the opportunity of having no write requests: RAID5s stepped up in the rating list and nearly reached the performance level of RAID0s of the same number of drives. RAID10 is the fastest, while RAID1 once again fell behind the single drive.

Curiously, RAID10 showed its maximum performance under a workload of 16 requests, outperforming RAID0, but slows down under higher workloads.

The status of lazy write shouldn’t affect the array performance in this test as it has no write requests and that’s exactly what we see here.

 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 ]

Discussion

Comments currently: 3
Discussion started: 06/01/04 03:35:08 AM
Latest comment: 08/31/04 04:27:24 PM

View comments

Add your Comment