Thanks for all the updates. Will look into iozone and the advice given about the rest. 2010/5/6 <przemolicc at poczta.fm>: > On Thu, May 06, 2010 at 12:56:55AM -0700, John R Pierce wrote: >> przemolicc at poczta.fm wrote: >> > The above numbers are true if we have random (!) IO pattern. >> > In case of sequential (!) IO even SATA disks can deliver much, much higher numbers. >> > >> >> >> sequential IO is remarkably rare in a typical server environment > > Yes, of course: Oracle's redo logs which are key performance factor for all > transactions (inserts/updates) have sequential IO pattern. > And Oracle is not a typical server environment .... > >> anyways, the IOPS numbers on sequential operations aren't much higher, >> they are just transferring more data per operation. > > I didn't say that they _are_ much higher. I said that even SATA > disks can deliver hight IOPS on condition of sequential IO. > > > Regards > Przemyslaw Bak (przemol) > -- > http://przemol.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Audi kilka tysiÄ cy zĹ otych taniej? Przebieraj wĹ rĂłd tysiÄ cy ogĹ oszeĹ ! > Sprawdz >>> http://linkint.pl/f26b3 > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >