On Apr 13, 7:01 pm, "Henrik Goldman" <h...@x-formation.com> wrote:

>
> However I see clearly now that the disk is more slow then the old 20 gb IDE
> disk that was in the Ultra 5 machine we're replacing. Some unit tests done
> by our code write a lot of files to the disk and then read them again. This
> has to happen within 2 seconds but takes 3.9 seconds on the 280R where as it
> never failed on the Ultra 5. Maybe I should look into options with write
> cache?
>

That's just not right. There are crappier disk systems than the U5/
U10 had but you'd be hard put to find one, and the 280R certainly is
not an example. You have some horrible misconfiguration or are
misidentifying the problem. Use some disk benchmark (bonnie?) to
establish what the performance problem really is (and in particular to
establish that it's not I/O).

Do you have logging turned on on the filesystems? This can make a huge
difference to metadata-heavy loads (lots of tiny short-lived files)
often generated by compilations. I don't think logging became the
default until 10, so unless the mounts specify it you don't have it,
and you should.