Community technical support mailing list was retired 2010 and replaced with a professional technical support team. For assistance please contact: Pre-sales Technical support via email to sales@march-hare.com.
Trevor, Thanks for publishing the stats - they are quite interesting. Can you answer a few more questions about your test?: * was the local RAID tests performed with hardware or software RAID? * what was the architecture of the local disk (IDE, SIDE, SCSI, SCSI Ultra 320, SCSI Ultra 160 etc)? * what was the architecture of the local IO (PCI, PCIX, ATBUS etc) and speed (if known)? * what was the file system on the array (NTFS, FAT, other)? * was a battery backed write cache installed the local RAID controller? * was a battery backed write cache installed the SAN ? * what is the SAN interconnect (eg: iSCSI, Fibre)? * what were the SAN disks (SIDE, SCSI, SCSI Ultra 320, SCSI Ultra 160 etc)? > The CVS Server is 2.5.02.2115 and the client was 2.5.03.22650 >From memory recent builds of CVSNT Server 2.5.03 do address a couple of performance issues, but not specifically disk performance. In particular in 2.5.03 server "atomic checkout" is now disabled by default for optimal performance and stability, so it would be interesting to try the same tests with the newer server when it's declared stable. Thanks, Arthur