Re: SATA-performance: Linux vs. FreeBSD
- From: "Martin A. Fink" <fink@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:25:15 +0100
Am Dienstag, 13. Februar 2007 00:31 schrieben Sie:
Martin A. Fink wrote:for
I have to store big amounts of data coming from 2 digital cameras to disk.
Thus I have to write blocks of around 1 MB at 30 to 50 frames per second
isa long period of time. So it is important for me that the harddisk drive
operatereliable in the sense of "if it is capable of 50 MB/s then it should
at this speed. Constantly."
The good old handful of suggestions:
- Use a dedicated disc for the task.
I used a dedicated disk for this task. No one else besides the task is writing
to it!
- Use an empty disc so there is no fragmentation.
All tests were performed on empty disk!
- Buy a bigger disk, they have high bandwidths.
I have a flash disk from a manufacturer who grants me 48 MB/s. And FreeBSD as
well as Windows reach this value. Only Linux 2.6.18 is far away from it (42
MB/s)
- Buy a more "specialized" disc.
see above
for e.x.: Western Digital Raptor X(*) a 150GB, 10-KRPM S-ATA disc.
- Buy several discs and use RAID 0
or alternate between discs when writing.
What I have to build is an application for the International Space Station
ISS. I am limited with power and space. So If the disk is able to write
constantly 48 MB/s then the Operating System should do this!
- use XFS. AFAIK XFS has about the best "large file" and "high
bandwidth" characteristics.
- that with XFS you can preallocate the files doesn't seem relevant in
this case. It's more for the case that you write several files
simultaneously over a longer period of time.
- Write to one large file and separate the individual files later.
if you are sure that you don't get a power-failure:
- Disable Write-Barriers, especially on a logging-filesystem.
- Enable write-caching.
(hdparm doesn't appear to be able to do that with a SATA-disc, but
blktool appears to be able to)
The later has a good chance of corrupting your filesystem when you do
get a power-failure!!!
*:
I don't think you want something from the server-line,
SCSI/FibreChannel/...?
IIRC i read a something about the first 100MB/s disc with in the 15-KRPM
league.
Power consumption! See above.
The problem is: FreeBSD is fast, but lacks of some special drivers. Linux has
Bis denn
all drivers but access to harddisk is unpredictable and thus unreliable!
What can I do??
--
Real Programmers consider "what you see is what you get" to be just as
bad a concept in Text Editors as it is in women. No, the Real Programmer
wants a "you asked for it, you got it" text editor -- complicated,
cryptic, powerful, unforgiving, dangerous.
--
Dipl. Physiker
Martin Anton Fink
Max Planck Institute for extraterrestrial Physics
Giessenbachstrasse
85741 Garching
Germany
Tel. +49-(0)89-30000-3645
Fax. +49-(0)89-30000-3569
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: SATA-performance: Linux vs. FreeBSD
- From: Matthias Schniedermeyer
- Re: SATA-performance: Linux vs. FreeBSD
- From: Arjan van de Ven
- Re: SATA-performance: Linux vs. FreeBSD
- References:
- SATA-performance: Linux vs. FreeBSD
- From: Martin A. Fink
- Re: SATA-performance: Linux vs. FreeBSD
- From: Martin A. Fink
- Re: SATA-performance: Linux vs. FreeBSD
- From: Matthias Schniedermeyer
- SATA-performance: Linux vs. FreeBSD
- Prev by Date: Re: [patch 0/3] 2.6.20 fix for PageUptodate memorder problem (try 3)
- Next by Date: Re: [Linux-fbdev-devel] [PATCH] nvidiafb: allow ignoring EDID info
- Previous by thread: Re: SATA-performance: Linux vs. FreeBSD
- Next by thread: Re: SATA-performance: Linux vs. FreeBSD
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|