Complete Performance: Adaptec AAA-UDMA
|
Adaptec
AAA-UDMA
|
|||||||
|
8KB
|
16KB
|
32KB
|
64KB
|
128KB
|
RAID5
128k
|
Mirror
|
|
| CCW01 | 31.2 | 34.8 | 37.9 | 39.4 | 40.4 | 28.5 | 35.4 |
| File server Low | |||||||
| Total I/O/sec | 71.25655 | 74.1532 | 76.40516 | 77.43056 | 78.93444 | 64.25565 | 71.84088 |
| Total MB/sec | 0.768494 | 0.810977 | 0.823789 | 0.844516 | 0.854708 | 0.703336 | 0.765489 |
| Avg I/O response | 14.03083 | 13.48302 | 13.08511 | 12.91184 | 12.66574 | 15.56021 | 13.917 |
| CPU Util | 0.711054 | 0.719604 | 0.658672 | 0.673348 | 0.61168 | 0.591968 | 0.596753 |
| File server Med | |||||||
| Total I/O/sec | 104.0569 | 108.1677 | 110.3821 | 111.6732 | 112.5718 | 88.31788 | 110.9632 |
| Total MB/sec | 1.114103 | 1.17716 | 1.19118 | 1.209714 | 1.225276 | 0.956352 | 1.198263 |
| Avg I/O response | 307.4287 | 295.757 | 289.8369 | 286.4917 | 284.1708 | 362.2482 | 288.3103 |
| CPU Util | 0.906624 | 0.960045 | 0.939914 | 0.812937 | 0.846381 | 0.719377 | 0.90666 |
| File server High | |||||||
| Total I/O/sec | 116.3812 | 122.2189 | 125.1642 | 126.8328 | 128.7369 | 100.7005 | 124.7053 |
| Total MB/sec | 1.258856 | 1.315137 | 1.353862 | 1.380514 | 1.406467 | 1.075972 | 1.339324 |
| Avg I/O response | 1098.934 | 1046.521 | 1021.732 | 1008.487 | 933.4825 | 1269.965 | 1025.75 |
| CPU Util | 0.974041 | 1.035432 | 1.063364 | 0.859536 | 0.931563 | 0.898099 | 1.08758 |
| Database Low | |||||||
| Total I/O/sec | 67.23656 | 73.90781 | 79.04055 | 81.97249 | 83.64126 | 59.4603 | 71.66333 |
| Total MB/sec | 0.525286 | 0.577405 | 0.617504 | 0.64041 | 0.653447 | 0.464534 | 0.55987 |
| Avg I/O response | 14.86962 | 13.52734 | 12.64924 | 12.1964 | 11.95336 | 16.81475 | 13.95172 |
| CPU Util | 0.819647 | 0.791279 | 0.782936 | 0.762894 | 0.737914 | 0.714503 | 0.774591 |
| Database Med | |||||||
| Total I/O/sec | 101.1893 | 109.9112 | 115.3153 | 118.1498 | 119.458 | 83.16301 | 112.1667 |
| Total MB/sec | 0.790541 | 0.858682 | 0.900901 | 0.923046 | 0.933327 | 0.649711 | 0.876303 |
| Avg I/O response | 316.146 | 291.0723 | 277.4322 | 270.7919 | 267.8315 | 384.6634 | 285.1995 |
| CPU Util | 0.94814 | 1.036596 | 0.991546 | 0.964818 | 0.924751 | 0.903044 | 0.95822 |
| Database High | |||||||
| Total I/O/sec | 113.2573 | 123.9873 | 131.2281 | 135.2258 | 137.639 | 94.37823 | 126.0247 |
| Total MB/sec | 0.884823 | 0.968651 | 1.025219 | 1.056451 | 1.075305 | 0.73733 | 0.984568 |
| Avg I/O response | 1129.301 | 1031.513 | 974.6317 | 945.945 | 929.4414 | 1355.043 | 1014.974 |
| CPU Util | 1.061546 | 1.04995 | 1.068269 | 1.05661 | 0.984666 | 0.944821 | 1.111758 |
| Workstation Low | |||||||
| Total I/O/sec | 78.95693 | 80.65549 | 86.43924 | 89.9544 | 92.19003 | 74.34632 | 85.6204 |
| Total MB/sec | 0.616851 | 0.630121 | 0.675307 | 0.702769 | 0.720235 | 0.580831 | 0.668909 |
| Avg I/O response | 12.66264 | 12.39597 | 11.56635 | 11.11425 | 10.84406 | 13.44816 | 11.67704 |
| CPU Util | 0.821255 | 0.81632 | 0.841381 | 0.807946 | 0.776303 | 0.682773 | 0.829715 |
| Workstation Med | |||||||
| Total I/O/sec | 112.9377 | 114.9921 | 120.6931 | 124.1917 | 125.9231 | 99.23827 | 127.1239 |
| Total MB/sec | 0.882326 | 0.898376 | 0.942915 | 0.970248 | 0.983774 | 0.775299 | 0.993156 |
| Avg I/O response | 283.2855 | 278.2004 | 265.1005 | 257.6229 | 254.0763 | 322.4086 | 251.6587 |
| CPU Util | 1.008242 | 0.978171 | 0.891352 | 0.948209 | 0.971432 | 0.90473 | 1.018305 |
| Workstation High | |||||||
| Total I/O/sec | 124.9915 | 129.3204 | 136.7711 | 141.2342 | 143.8035 | 112.3077 | 141.8096 |
| Total MB/sec | 0.976496 | 1.010316 | 1.068524 | 1.103392 | 1.123465 | 0.877404 | 1.107887 |
| Avg I/O response | 1023.267 | 989.1566 | 935.2815 | 905.7801 | 889.3829 | 1138.763 | 902.0593 |
| CPU Util | 1.170038 | 1.083329 | 1.10174 | 1.018261 | 1.091622 | 1.001548 | 1.228573 |
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
2 Comments
View All Comments
kburrows - Thursday, December 4, 2003 - link
Have you run any tests on any onboard RAID solutions for RAID 0 & 1? I would love to see the results posted for the new SATA RAID on the Intel 875 boards.Anonymous User - Sunday, August 17, 2003 - link
In adressing the performance of an raid array with different stripe sizes, you miss an important factor, namely the accestime of an disk. This wait time has two main couses. First the head positioning and second the rotational latency (the heads track the right trace, but position where the read start has not passed under the head). You may have to wait from 0 to (in the worst case) a full cycle.Since the disks move independently You can calculate that the average latency to get an small file is minimal when the stripe size is about an full cycle of an disk in the array (aprox. 250kB today). All other factors I do know do not reduce this. (controller overhead, transport,...)
So I think that today a minimum stripe size of 256kB should be used.