From owner-freebsd-questions Sun Feb 11 22:28:23 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [206.29.169.15]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 052E137B503 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 22:28:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from tedm.placo.com (nat-rtr.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [206.29.168.154]) by mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f1C6S0310552; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 22:28:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" To: "Mike Meyer" Cc: Subject: RE: Problems installing 4.x on large disks Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 22:28:08 -0800 Message-ID: <000901c094bc$f7385300$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <14983.29323.218278.757276@guru.mired.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Meyer [mailto:mwm@mired.org] > Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 9:20 PM > To: Ted Mittelstaedt > Cc: questions@freebsd.org > Subject: RE: Problems installing 4.x on large disks > > > Ted Mittelstaedt types: > > OK Mike, > > Since your obviously dying for a comparison, here's the > > output of bonnie run on one of the spools on our news server. > > This is on a stripe set of 3 9GB SCSI disks that has been > > built with the command: > > Actually, I've done my comparison. I'm asking you to check your > beliefs against reality. Which your test doesn't do. We both agreed Whoah, here! I didn't post those results with the goal of getting into "This proves my point is right and yours is wrong" type of debate. I figured that since you have obviously got some systems with the most modern IDE drives and busmastering controllers running that you might post your results, and as you pointed out we both agreed that a striped SCSI set is _supposed_ to be the fastest. If you would post the best results you can get off cheap IDE disk servers then not only we but all the readers of the list could see just _how much_ different the output is. I mean, after all if the fastest IDE/UDMA server you can deploy is only 10% slower than my posted results of striped SCSI, then that pretty well puts the nail in the coffin of my "gobs of performance" argument doesen't it? In any case, to do a _true and fair_ comparison would take going out and buying 2 drives from the same manufacturer that are identical save that one has a SCSI and one has an IDE interface, then do a battery of benchmarking on them with a program like bonnie with different sample sizes, multiple sessions of bonnie running, different niceness levels, different filesystem frag sizes, etc. I can't do that because I don't have the hardware, and I don't have the time to do a good benchmark performance test right now. All I can do is post some different results from different systems I have and compare them to yours and we can both attempt to infer some reasonable guesses from the results. > that with multiple disks, SCSI is much faster. Sure, if you want a > file server, or a heavily loaded network server, or even a high-end, > cost-is-no object workstation, that's the kind of thing you do. But > the requirements on those is in no way indicative of a typical unix > workstation, which is what your original claim was about: > Maybe I'm wrong in my definition of a UNIX workstation, but a workstation is the type of system that would be specified for a computer for a serious user, like an engineer, software developer, etc. to interface with. I don't consider PC's built specifically for gaming (ie: highly optimized for video, otherwise made with as cheap components as possible) nor do I consider cheap but bland PC's bought for the office secretary to run Word on as workstations. Unfortunately PC marketeers are in the process of wrecking the work "workstation" to try to make it to mean any PC that is made out of garbage-grade components that they are trying to get an extra $200 for. But I figured you knew better. You say "cost-is-no object workstation", well that's silly, what do you think that a "workstation" is? Last I checked, "cost-is-no-object" was an integral part of the definition of the word "workstation" > > Anyway, pardon me for being bigoted, but IDE disks have no > > place in a UNIX workstation. > > That's like saying that Wintel hardware has no place in a Unix > server. It used to be true. I happen to believe it's still true in > some situations. But it's no longer true in general. > Look, I have a LOT of UNIX systems deployed that have IDE drives, believe it or not. They are in use as routers, monitoring systems, etc. I DON'T consider them workstations, some of them only have 486 chips in them. Nor did I ever say people shouldn't run them, as you recall I gave the original poster the solution to getting his mammoth IDE disk to work. But, don't think that just because you can get impressive performance figures off of IDE that all the sudden the E-Machines gamer's special from Fry's is now an honest-to-god real live workstation. Ted Mittelstaedt tedm@toybox.placo.com Author of: The FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide Book website: http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com > -- > Mike Meyer http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message