From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 30 01:55:37 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B754216A407 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2006 01:55:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dan@dan.emsphone.com) Received: from dan.emsphone.com (dan.emsphone.com [199.67.51.101]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A0A243D45 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2006 01:55:37 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dan@dan.emsphone.com) Received: (from dan@localhost) by dan.emsphone.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) id k8U1tYmK077357 for freebsd-stable@freebsd.org; Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:55:34 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from dan) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:55:34 -0500 From: Dan Nelson To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20060930015534.GA77128@dan.emsphone.com> References: <20060928221505.GA75187@mail1.thewrittenword.com> <20060929235534.GA68743@mail1.thewrittenword.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060929235534.GA68743@mail1.thewrittenword.com> X-OS: FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE X-message-flag: Outlook Error User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Subject: Re: Poor write performance with LSI 320-2 on 6.1-STABLE X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 01:55:37 -0000 In the last episode (Sep 29), Albert Chin said: > On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 05:15:05PM -0500, Albert Chin wrote: > > I have an Intel S875PWP1 motherboard with a Pentium4 CPU@2.40GHz. PCI > > bus is 33Mhz, 32-bit. I recently purchased an LSI 320-2/128MB on eBay > > (though the card really looks like a PERC4/DS) and just ran some > > bonnie++ tests on a RAID 1 array between two U320 drives for the first > > channel and on a RAID 0 array between one U320 drive for the second > > channel. The 320-2 has the latest LSI firmware, 1L47. > > I reran some of the tests with the same 320-2 but on an Intel > SE7520BD2 with 32-bit and 64-bit (100Mhz) slots: > #1. RAID 1, two U320 drives, channel 1, 32-bit, 33Mhz slot > Version 1.93c ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random- > Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- > Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP > maetel.il.thew 300M 186 99 16707 5 16063 6 654 99 537320 93 4129 50 > Latency 45215us 199ms 89764us 34740us 1215us 1808ms > Version 1.93c ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create-------- > maetel.il.thewritte -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- > files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP > 16 7441 23 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ 5799 18 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ > Latency 479ms 122us 2508us 606ms 13549us 101us > > #2. RAID 1, two U320 drives, channel 1, 64-bit, 100Mhz slot > Version 1.93c ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random- > Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- > Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP > maetel.il.thew 300M 186 99 18006 6 15964 5 634 99 571275 99 4450 57 > Latency 44992us 139ms 130ms 35143us 1238us 120ms > Version 1.93c ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create-------- > maetel.il.thewritte -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- > files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP > 16 7581 24 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ 5750 18 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ > Latency 511ms 255us 2615us 622ms 12691us 53us > > Odd that I don't get x2 the performance when the bus bandwidth doubles > in speed. Not really odd, since you're nowhere near even the 32-bit bus's max. (32bit * 33Mhz) / 8 bits = 132 MB/sec, and in write-through mode you're spending most of your time witing for the disks to sync. With a larger filesize you might see a difference in the sequential input test; judging by your insane sequential read and random seek values, your 300M test file looks like it's completely cached in RAM. A size 2x your RAM capacity is recommended. -- Dan Nelson dnelson@allantgroup.com