Skip to main content
Glama

calc.engineer

by engineer.calc

raid iops

raid_iops

Estimate RAID array IOPS performance and latency for ZFS and traditional RAID configurations. Calculates maximum read IOPS, write IOPS (accounting for write penalty/amplification per RAID level), blended IOPS for a configurable read/write workload mix, and rough per-disk latency. Supports stripe, mirror, raidz1, raidz2, and raidz3. Use with HDD IOPS (~150), SATA SSD (~50000), or NVMe SSD (~100000) to compare RAID topologies and plan storage performance for databases, VMs, media servers, and general homelab NAS workloads. Chains from zfs_capacity.data_disks for integrated capacity+performance planning.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
read_pctNoPercentage of workload that is reads (0-100). Typical: 70 for mixed, 90 for read-heavy, 30 for write-heavy
disk_iopsNoIOPS per individual disk. Typical values: HDD ~150, SATA SSD ~50000, NVMe SSD ~100000
raid_typeNoRAID level: stripe (no redundancy, write penalty 1), mirror (write penalty 2), raidz1 (write penalty 2), raidz2 (write penalty 3), raidz3 (write penalty 4)raidz1
disk_countYesTotal number of physical disks in the array

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
read_iopsYesMaximum read IOPS: disk_count * disk_iops
write_iopsYesMaximum write IOPS: disk_count * disk_iops / write_penalty
blended_iopsYesEffective IOPS for the given read/write mix: (read_pct * read_iops + write_pct * write_iops) / 100
write_penaltyYesWrite amplification factor for the chosen RAID level
estimated_latency_msYesRough per-disk latency estimate in milliseconds: 1000 / (blended_iops / disk_count)

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It accurately describes the outputs: max read IOPS, write IOPS (with write penalty), blended IOPS, and per-disk latency. It also names the supported RAID levels. However, it does not mention limitations, assumptions (e.g., uniform workload, no caching), or the calculation methodology beyond write penalty. Adequate but not comprehensive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. It efficiently covers output details, supported RAID types, and typical use cases. Slightly verbose with enumeration of RAID levels but still concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool is a calculator with an output schema (not provided), the description adequately covers inputs, outputs, and typical usage. It mentions integration with zfs_capacity for chain planning. The description is complete enough for the complexity of the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has detailed explanations in the schema (defaults, ranges, enum values, typical disk IOPS). The description reinforces typical values but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool estimates RAID array IOPS performance and latency for ZFS and traditional RAID. It specifies the verb 'estimate' and resource 'RAID array IOPS performance and latency'. It lists supported RAID levels and use cases, distinguishing it from sibling tools like zfs_capacity and zfs_ram which focus on capacity and RAM.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides usage context by recommending typical disk IOPS values and use cases (databases, VMs, media servers, homelab NAS). It mentions integration with zfs_capacity for capacity planning. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or when not to use this tool, and does not name alternatives for IOPS estimation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All calc.engineer toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Despite 89 tools, each has a clearly distinct purpose with detailed descriptions that often reference related tools. Overlap exists (e.g., multiple LoRa/RF tools), but the descriptions are sufficient to distinguish them. Some confusion possible among similar-sounding tools like attenuator_pi and attenuator_tee, but the descriptions explicitly compare them.

Naming Consistency4/5

Consistent underscore-separated lowercase naming. Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., capacitor_charge, wire_gauge) or noun_noun (power_cost). Minor inconsistencies such as 'bmi_calculator' vs 'solar_sizing' but overall predictable.

Tool Count2/5

89 tools is far too many for a single MCP server. This scope is more appropriate for multiple specialized servers. The sheer number will slow agent selection and increase cognitive load, reducing coherence.

Completeness3/5

Covers many domains (RF, solar, PCB, networking, math, etc.) but lacks depth in some areas (e.g., no three-phase power, no airflow calculations). Some domains have comprehensive coverage (LoRa/Meshtastic), but others feel incomplete for the tool count.

Resources