SATA Raid (stress test..)

[Alex Zbyslaw]

Nikolas Britton wrote:

>This and all the other benchmarks you've run are useless. Run a real
>benchmark like iozone. It's in ports under benchmarks/iozone.
>http://www.iozone.org/
>  
>
Please can you be careful when you attribute your comments.  You've sent 
this email "to" me, and left only my name in the attributions as if I 
were someone suggesting either dd or diskinfo as accurate benchmarks, 
when in fact my contribution was to suggest unixbench and sandra-lite.  
Maybe you hate those too, in which case you can quote what I said 
in-context and rubbish that at your pleasure.

The OP sent poor-throughput dd stats, and I explained why they were 
poor.  The OP then complained that diskinfo -t stats weren't up to 
snuff, so I contributed mine because they were comparable and I couldn't 
see why he(?) didn't like his(?). 

I would contend that the statement "all the other benchmarks you've run 
are useless" is grandiose over-generalisation.  Both dd (with a 
sensible  blocksize) and diskinfo -t will give you useful information.  
One might be an idiot to trust the data to several decimal places, but 
if the result from both was, say, a transfer rate of 5Mb/s when you 
expected 50Mb/s, you could conclude that something was up.  Of course 
neither mimics real-world behaviour; but both likely provide reasonable 
maxima.  You may find that "useless", but with no explanation for your 
reasoning, your statement isn't terribly helpful.

--Alex