Re: [Hampshire] Testing iSCSI performance

Top Page

Reply to this message
Author: Philip Stubbs
Date:  
To: Hampshire LUG Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Hampshire] Testing iSCSI performance
2009/5/27 Brian Chivers <brian@???>:
> I used the bon_csv2html2 script to generate some tables and combined them into the page below. The
> first two tables are from the same machine & the second is one of our main servers which has a PERC4
> SCSI card but the trouble is I don't know what I'm looking at, is this good bad or indifferent :-)
>
> http://ww2.portsmouth-college.ac.uk/brian/bonnie.html


My guess would be the lower the latency the better. Depending on what
the machine is going to be used for, will make a difference sequential
or random read/writes. For a general purpose file server, I guess
random performance would be more useful. For a file backup machine,
sequential performance may be more important.

Looking at the tables above, I would guess that the third has the
better hardware. Is that true? If so, that should confirm that you can
use this tool to do comparative tests between setups.

I hope somone else can provide better information as I have a habbit
of talking off the top of me head without any real knowledge to back
it up. I fear this may be one of those occasions. :-)
--
Philip Stubbs