Articles: Storage
 

Bookmark and Share

(21) 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 ]

Now let’s take a look at the results in Webserver pattern:

RAID0 array graphs haven’t really changed compared to those in Fileserver, however, all other arrays got much more affected by the absence of write requests. Mirrored RAID1 and RAID10 arrays that use algorithms for read optimization from the mirror turn out faster than RAID0 of two hard disk drives and four hard disk drives respectively in all test modes except the one with 256 requests queue depth. However, it is even more noticeable that the performance of RAID5 array of three and four drives is higher than that of RAID0 arrays of the corresponding number of drives in almost all test modes.

Now let’s compare the results for different arrays using our rating system. Provided all workloads are considered equally probable, we will calculate the general performance rating index as the average performance during requests processing under all types of workload:

Since there are no tasks for the XOR-processor, RAID5 array of four drives appeared the fastest of all, and RAID0 and RAID5 arrays of three drives run almost equally fast. RAID1 and RAID10 also proved quite fast when there are no write requests to be processed, they even outpaced RAID0 arrays of the corresponding number of HDDs.

 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 ]

Discussion

Comments currently: 21
Discussion started: 02/26/06 02:52:18 PM
Latest comment: 11/27/07 10:18:14 PM

View comments

Add your Comment