From owner-aic7xxx@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 14 12:13:02 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: aic7xxx@freebsd.org Delivered-To: aic7xxx@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B3C016A405 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:13:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ibr@radix50.net) Received: from almaty.kz-easy.com (kz-easy.com [85.214.25.173]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C73D913C465 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:13:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ibr@radix50.net) Received: from alatau.radix50.net (dslb-088-064-025-021.pools.arcor-ip.net [88.64.25.21]) (authenticated bits=0) by almaty.kz-easy.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge3) with ESMTP id l2ECCnhM031948 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:12:55 +0100 Received: from alatau.radix50.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alatau.radix50.net (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-2) with ESMTP id l2ECCoJh009892 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:12:50 +0100 Received: (from ibr@localhost) by alatau.radix50.net (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id l2ECCoXd009891 for aic7xxx@freebsd.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:12:50 +0100 Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:12:50 +0100 From: Baurzhan Ismagulov To: aic7xxx@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20070314121250.GB2553@radix50.net> Mail-Followup-To: aic7xxx@freebsd.org 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <45E8C36C.1020407@paralan.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.3 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL,RCVD_IN_XBL autolearn=no version=3.0.3 X-Spam-Level: **** X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on almaty.kz-easy.com Subject: Re: Adaptec 2940UW with Fujitsu MAN3184M X-BeenThere: aic7xxx@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Adaptec Device Drivers in FreeBSD and Linux List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:13:02 -0000 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/ From owner-aic7xxx@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 14 14:06:38 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: aic7xxx@freebsd.org Delivered-To: aic7xxx@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C79716A402 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:06:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gibbs@scsiguy.com) Received: from ns1.scsiguy.com (www.scsiguy.com [70.89.174.89]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7394513C483 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:06:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gibbs@scsiguy.com) Received: from [10.0.8.59] (63-138-16-130.customer.static.ip.paetec.net [63.138.16.130] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.scsiguy.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l2EDg74T058274 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 07:42:08 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from gibbs@scsiguy.com) Message-ID: <45F7FBA5.4010404@scsiguy.com> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 09:41:57 -0400 From: "Justin T. Gibbs" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: aic7xxx@freebsd.org 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> <20070314121250.GB2553@radix50.net> In-Reply-To: <20070314121250.GB2553@radix50.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Adaptec 2940UW with Fujitsu MAN3184M X-BeenThere: aic7xxx@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Adaptec Device Drivers in FreeBSD and Linux List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:06:38 -0000 Baurzhan Ismagulov wrote: > > 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. Make sure you run a fair test. Most SCSI drives are shipped from the factory with the write cache set to "write-through". SATA and ATA drives almost always operate in "write-back" mode. Your 29160 BIOS should have an option to set the caching mode on a per-target basis. If you're system is backed up by a UPS or your FS can handle being lied to, write-back is fine. Otherwise it's really not a safe option. -- Justin From owner-aic7xxx@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 14 14:21:03 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: aic7xxx@freebsd.org Delivered-To: aic7xxx@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABE1116A406 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:21:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vincent@cojot.name) Received: from postfix2-g20.free.fr (postfix2-g20.free.fr [212.27.60.43]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70E6C13C4AE for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:21:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vincent@cojot.name) Received: from smtp6-g19.free.fr (smtp6-g19.free.fr [212.27.42.36]) by postfix2-g20.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AE78C31D50 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:49:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from mlr78-2-82-243-29-243.fbx.proxad.net (mlr78-2-82-243-29-243.fbx.proxad.net [82.243.29.243]) by smtp6-g19.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59F755A0DB; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:49:25 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:49:24 +0100 (CET) From: vincent@cojot.name X-X-Sender: coyote@thorbardin.lasthome.solace.krynn To: Baurzhan Ismagulov In-Reply-To: <20070314121250.GB2553@radix50.net> Message-ID: 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> <20070314121250.GB2553@radix50.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: aic7xxx@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Adaptec 2940UW with Fujitsu MAN3184M X-BeenThere: aic7xxx@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Adaptec Device Drivers in FreeBSD and Linux List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:21:03 -0000 On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Baurzhan Ismagulov wrote: > 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? Huh? You are comparing a 1999 disk drive (MAN3184M, 18Gb) to a 2005/2006-circa SATA disk drive (Seagate Barracuda 7200.10)? It's like comparing oranges to apples IMHO. Get a 2006-circa SCSI disk drive and try again, perhaps..? As a side note, my 300GB 10k7 SCSI Seagate looks about 40% faster than my ST3750640A (Barracuda 7200.10) disk drive using hdparm -t on two Dell workstations.. Regards, -- ,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-, Vincent S. Cojot, Computer Engineering. STEP project. _.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~ Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, Comite Micro-Informatique. _.,-*~'`^`'~*-,. Linux Xview/OpenLook resources page _.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~' http://step.polymtl.ca/~coyote _.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._ coyote@NOSPAM4cojot.name They cannot scare me with their empty spaces Between stars - on stars where no human race is I have it in me so much nearer home To scare myself with my own desert places. - Robert Frost From owner-aic7xxx@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 14 16:10:24 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: aic7xxx@freebsd.org Delivered-To: aic7xxx@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 515BB16A406 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:10:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ibr@radix50.net) Received: from almaty.kz-easy.com (kz-easy.com [85.214.25.173]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB09C13C45A for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:10:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ibr@radix50.net) Received: from alatau.radix50.net (dslb-088-064-025-021.pools.arcor-ip.net [88.64.25.21]) (authenticated bits=0) by almaty.kz-easy.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge3) with ESMTP id l2EGA6fE000935 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:10:10 +0100 Received: from alatau.radix50.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alatau.radix50.net (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-2) with ESMTP id l2EGA7cH020180 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:10:07 +0100 Received: (from ibr@localhost) by alatau.radix50.net (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id l2EGA6lk020179 for aic7xxx@freebsd.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:10:06 +0100 Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:10:06 +0100 From: Baurzhan Ismagulov To: aic7xxx@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20070314161006.GC2553@radix50.net> Mail-Followup-To: aic7xxx@freebsd.org 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> <20070314121250.GB2553@radix50.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.3 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL,RCVD_IN_XBL autolearn=no version=3.0.3 X-Spam-Level: **** X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on almaty.kz-easy.com Subject: Re: Adaptec 2940UW with Fujitsu MAN3184M X-BeenThere: aic7xxx@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Adaptec Device Drivers in FreeBSD and Linux List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:10:24 -0000 Hello Vincent, On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 02:49:24PM +0100, vincent@cojot.name wrote: > >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? > > Huh? You are comparing a 1999 disk drive (MAN3184M, 18Gb) to a > 2005/2006-circa SATA disk drive (Seagate Barracuda 7200.10)? It's like > comparing oranges to apples IMHO. Get a 2006-circa SCSI disk drive and try > again, perhaps..? The question was more "can I still find any use for my MAN3184M, or should I throw it away", rather than "what is better". That said, I'm also interested in the latter, and I would like to do see some test results before going for, say, ST336753LW. > As a side note, my 300GB 10k7 SCSI Seagate looks about 40% faster than my > ST3750640A (Barracuda 7200.10) disk drive using hdparm -t on two Dell > workstations.. This is the disk_controller-to-RAM transfer rate, what about some simple real applications? Writing / reading /proc/kcore and building the Linux kernel from ccache differed by 6 to 20% for me while hdparm -t reported 30%. With kind regards, -- Baurzhan Ismagulov http://www.kz-easy.com/ From owner-aic7xxx@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 14 16:50:56 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: aic7xxx@freebsd.org Delivered-To: aic7xxx@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC12316A401 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:50:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ibr@radix50.net) Received: from almaty.kz-easy.com (kz-easy.com [85.214.25.173]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BA7713C468 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:50:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ibr@radix50.net) Received: from alatau.radix50.net (dslb-088-064-025-021.pools.arcor-ip.net [88.64.25.21]) (authenticated bits=0) by almaty.kz-easy.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge3) with ESMTP id l2EGojRr001137 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:50:47 +0100 Received: from alatau.radix50.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alatau.radix50.net (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-2) with ESMTP id l2EGokMt021411 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:50:46 +0100 Received: (from ibr@localhost) by alatau.radix50.net (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id l2EGojWk021410 for aic7xxx@freebsd.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:50:45 +0100 Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:50:45 +0100 From: Baurzhan Ismagulov To: aic7xxx@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20070314165045.GA21264@radix50.net> Mail-Followup-To: aic7xxx@freebsd.org 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> <20070314121250.GB2553@radix50.net> <45F7FBA5.4010404@scsiguy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <45F7FBA5.4010404@scsiguy.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.3 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL,RCVD_IN_XBL autolearn=no version=3.0.3 X-Spam-Level: **** X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on almaty.kz-easy.com Subject: Re: Adaptec 2940UW with Fujitsu MAN3184M X-BeenThere: aic7xxx@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Adaptec Device Drivers in FreeBSD and Linux List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:50:56 -0000 Hello Justin, On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 09:41:57AM -0400, Justin T. Gibbs wrote: > >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. > > Make sure you run a fair test. Most SCSI drives are shipped from the > factory with the write cache set to "write-through". SATA and ATA > drives almost always operate in "write-back" mode. Your 29160 BIOS > should have an option to set the caching mode on a per-target basis. I've enabled the BIOS and set the write-back mode on MAN3184M, no difference in writing /proc/kcore. > If you're system is backed up by a UPS or your FS can handle being > lied to, write-back is fine. Otherwise it's really not a safe option. Oh. Does ext3 handle that? Or do you know filesystems that do? I've googled for that, but the links I've looked at refer to ext3's writeback mode. With kind regards, -- Baurzhan Ismagulov http://www.kz-easy.com/ From owner-aic7xxx@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 14 17:21:57 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: aic7xxx@freebsd.org Delivered-To: aic7xxx@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD35316A400 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:21:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ibr@radix50.net) Received: from almaty.kz-easy.com (kz-easy.com [85.214.25.173]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2743A13C448 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:21:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ibr@radix50.net) Received: from alatau.radix50.net (dslb-088-064-025-021.pools.arcor-ip.net [88.64.25.21]) (authenticated bits=0) by almaty.kz-easy.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge3) with ESMTP id l2EHLld9001314 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:21:51 +0100 Received: from alatau.radix50.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alatau.radix50.net (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-2) with ESMTP id l2EHLmFW022399 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:21:48 +0100 Received: (from ibr@localhost) by alatau.radix50.net (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id l2EHLmCJ022398 for aic7xxx@freebsd.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:21:48 +0100 Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:21:48 +0100 From: Baurzhan Ismagulov To: aic7xxx@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20070314172148.GB21264@radix50.net> Mail-Followup-To: aic7xxx@freebsd.org 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> <20070314121250.GB2553@radix50.net> <45F7FBA5.4010404@scsiguy.com> <20070314165045.GA21264@radix50.net> <45F82E22.2060500@bga.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <45F82E22.2060500@bga.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.3 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL,RCVD_IN_XBL autolearn=no version=3.0.3 X-Spam-Level: **** X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on almaty.kz-easy.com Subject: Re: Adaptec 2940UW with Fujitsu MAN3184M X-BeenThere: aic7xxx@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Adaptec Device Drivers in FreeBSD and Linux List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:21:57 -0000 Hello Edward, On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 12:17:22PM -0500, Edward H. Welbon wrote: > EXT3 and XFS deal with write-back crashes pretty well. XFS is faster > (especially delete) and some argue more robust. Thanks for the info! Do you have any links about that? With kind regards, -- Baurzhan Ismagulov http://www.kz-easy.com/ From owner-aic7xxx@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 15 15:38:56 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: aic7xxx@freebsd.org Delivered-To: aic7xxx@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A398516A402 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:38:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ibr@radix50.net) Received: from almaty.kz-easy.com (kz-easy.com [85.214.25.173]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FC0613C44B for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:38:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ibr@radix50.net) Received: from alatau.radix50.net (dslb-088-064-000-056.pools.arcor-ip.net [88.64.0.56]) (authenticated bits=0) by almaty.kz-easy.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge3) with ESMTP id l2FFcgXx008268 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2007 16:38:48 +0100 Received: from alatau.radix50.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alatau.radix50.net (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-2) with ESMTP id l2FFcc8o030733 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2007 16:38:38 +0100 Received: (from ibr@localhost) by alatau.radix50.net (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id l2FFcbNh030732 for aic7xxx@freebsd.org; Thu, 15 Mar 2007 16:38:37 +0100 Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 16:38:37 +0100 From: Baurzhan Ismagulov To: aic7xxx@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20070315153837.GA21567@radix50.net> Mail-Followup-To: aic7xxx@freebsd.org References: <20070228233314.GA7348@radix50.net> <45E77B30.2090505@paralan.com> <20070302220950.GD7331@radix50.net> <45E8C36C.1020407@paralan.com> <20070314121250.GB2553@radix50.net> <45F7FBA5.4010404@scsiguy.com> <20070314165045.GA21264@radix50.net> <45F82E22.2060500@bga.com> <20070314172148.GB21264@radix50.net> <45F8D413.3010106@bga.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <45F8D413.3010106@bga.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.8 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL autolearn=no version=3.0.3 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on almaty.kz-easy.com Subject: Re: Adaptec 2940UW with Fujitsu MAN3184M X-BeenThere: aic7xxx@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Adaptec Device Drivers in FreeBSD and Linux List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:38:56 -0000 On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 12:05:23AM -0500, Edward H. Welbon wrote: > http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/388 is one place to start, > there are other links on said page. I find XFS to be durable to crashes. > I have an areca raid card with out a battery for the raid card ram on a > write back raid. Now and again the system has been crashed and powered > off and each time XFS recovered everything that had been journaled. > YMMV. I am getting a battery for the raid ram, but I've done with out > for some time. I highly recommend areca btw. Top notch for less than top > dollar. Cheers. Thanks! With kind regards, -- Baurzhan Ismagulov http://www.kz-easy.com/