Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:12:50 +0100 From: Baurzhan Ismagulov <ibr@radix50.net> To: aic7xxx@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Adaptec 2940UW with Fujitsu MAN3184M Message-ID: <20070314121250.GB2553@radix50.net> In-Reply-To: <45E8C36C.1020407@paralan.com> References: <20070228204034.GA2379@radix50.net> <45E602B3.2020306@paralan.com> <20070228233314.GA7348@radix50.net> <45E77B30.2090505@paralan.com> <20070302220950.GD7331@radix50.net> <45E8C36C.1020407@paralan.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 04:38:04PM -0800, Marc D. Brooks wrote: > I would recommend that since all of the hardware (except for the > controller) is LVD, capable of running at Ultra160 (which is stable) to > change the 2940 controller out for an Ultra160 capable LVD controller. > You will definitely get a faster speed than the SCSI Fast you are > currently experiencing, or the Ultra you ar trying to get, and not have > the struggles in trying to find what part(s) in your current > configuration are causing the system to run slower than Ultra. I bought a used 29160, and it worked at 160 MB/s OOTB, thanks for the suggestion! I've done some tests (hdparm -tT, build the Linux kernel with ccache) and have seen that my SATA 7.2k ST3320620AS outperforms U160 10k MAN3184M by up to 30%, so I decided not to use it for the rootfs yet. I've read that SCSI should perform better with many concurrent requests. Any simple test scenario I could try? With kind regards, -- Baurzhan Ismagulov http://www.kz-easy.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070314121250.GB2553>