Hi Chris, Thank you for sharing your numbers. Chris Samuel wrote (ao): > For people who might be interested, here is how btrfs performs > with two partitions on a single SSD drive in a RAID-1 mirror. > > This is on a Dell E4200 with Core 2 Duo U9300 (1.2GHz), 2GB RAM > and a Samsung SSD (128GB Thin uSATA SSD). MLC SSDs are famous for their write stalls when the disk gets full and old blocks need to be reused. Do you experience that too? Or can you test that situation? On your site you write: "As SSD's are not necessarily as reliable as spinning disk yet for data integrity .." I've skimmed the article you link to. I still think SSDs are much more reliable than spinning disks, especially the high end SLC SSDs. What is the general opinion on this? Could you also test without RAID1? And with the compression mount flag? And without the ssd mount flag? > Version 1.03c ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random- > -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- > Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP > sys26 2G 28299 17 18633 12 85702 29 3094 18 > ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create-------- > -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- > files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP > 16 7513 99 +++++ +++ 5140 98 3964 67 +++++ +++ 5652 99 > sys26,2G,,,28299,17,18633,12,,,85702,29,3093.9,18,16,7513,99,+++++,+++,5140,98,3964,67,+++++,+++,5652,99 > > real 3m51.883s > user 0m0.360s > sys 0m46.099s I have no experience with Bonnie++, but based on the output it seems you use a 2GB file while you have 2GB RAM. Is that a valid test? Also the test run of only 3 minutes 52 seconds seems way too short. With kind regards, Sander -- Humilis IT Services and Solutions http://www.humilis.net -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
