Philip Stubbs wrote:
> 2009/5/27 Brian Chivers <brian@???>:
>
>> I used the bon_csv2html2 script to generate some tables and combined them into the page below. The
>> first two tables are from the same machine & the second is one of our main servers which has a PERC4
>> SCSI card but the trouble is I don't know what I'm looking at, is this good bad or indifferent :-)
>>
>> http://ww2.portsmouth-college.ac.uk/brian/bonnie.html
>>
>
> My guess would be the lower the latency the better. Depending on what
> the machine is going to be used for, will make a difference sequential
> or random read/writes. For a general purpose file server, I guess
> random performance would be more useful. For a file backup machine,
> sequential performance may be more important.
>
> Looking at the tables above, I would guess that the third has the
> better hardware. Is that true? If so, that should confirm that you can
> use this tool to do comparative tests between setups.
>
> I hope somone else can provide better information as I have a habbit
> of talking off the top of me head without any real knowledge to back
> it up. I fear this may be one of those occasions. :-)
>
You correct the third table is a Dual Xeon 3 Ghz Dell PowerEdge 1800
with 3Gb's RAM & 10K SCSI drive, where as the iSCSI_test box is an old
P4 2.8Ghz machine with 1Gb RAM & an old 250Gb PATA IDE drive that I had
kicking about to play one.
What I'll have to do is run the bonnie++ stuff on the box I'm hoping to
replace to see if the performance will be similar. What I'm hoping to
use the iSCSI stuff for is to replace the locally attached /home
storage on our main Samba server so it's mostly smallish files & also
storage for thunderbird portable that management use.
Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The views expressed here are my own and not necessarily
the views of Portsmouth College
