Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 13 Feb 2004 13:23:49 +0100 (MET) | From | "Daniel Blueman" <> | Subject | Re: File system performance, hardware performance, ext3, 3ware RAID1, etc. |
| |
Willy Tarreau <willy@w.ods.org> wrote in message news:<1oEGw-2ex-1@gated-at.bofh.it>... > On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 06:32:31PM -0500, Timothy Miller wrote: > > > For writes, iozone found an upper bound of about 10megs/sec, which is > > abysmal. Typically, I'd expect writes to be faster (on a single drive) > > than reads, because once the write is sent, you can forget about it. > > You don't have to wait around for something to come back, and that > > latency for reads can hurt performance. The OS can also buffer writes > > and reorder them in order to improve efficiency. > > It depends on the disk too. Lots of disks (specially IDE) are far slower > on writes than they are on reads.
No. Have you verified this? If you 'dd' your swap partition from /dev/zero on IDE, you'll see write performance closely matches read performance, for drives old and new.
In the case of small transfers, the drive can hand them off to the on-drive write cache (2/8MB usually). The only case where IDE disks will be 'slow' for write performance is where you have no disk I/O scheduling and lots of small reads/writes - this case wins on SCSI, but many modern IDE disks and controllers also have tagged command queuing, so it is even more of a corner case.
Dan
-- Daniel J Blueman
GMX ProMail (250 MB Mailbox, 50 FreeSMS, Virenschutz, 2,99 EUR/Monat...) jetzt 3 Monate GRATIS + 3x DER SPIEGEL +++ http://www.gmx.net/derspiegel +++
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |