From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 18 22:17:12 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFE341065672 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 22:17:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from asmtpout024.mac.com (asmtpout024.mac.com [17.148.16.99]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7CC98FC12 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 22:17:12 +0000 (UTC) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Received: from cswiger1.apple.com ([17.209.4.71]) by asmtp024.mac.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-8.01 (built Dec 16 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPSA id <0L4800ECRDWNWS70@asmtp024.mac.com> for freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:17:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=6.0.2-1004200000 definitions=main-1006180151 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=1.12.8161:2.4.5,1.2.40,4.0.166 definitions=2010-06-18_03:2010-02-06, 2010-06-18, 2010-06-18 signatures=0 From: Chuck Swiger In-reply-to: <4C1B3792.9000007@freemail.hu> Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:17:11 -0700 Message-id: <8CA16EA2-9B00-4A09-AD71-5E3E9A4E469D@mac.com> References: <4C1AB4C0.4020604@freemail.hu> <4C1B3792.9000007@freemail.hu> To: oizs X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Dell Perc 5/i Performance issues X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 22:17:12 -0000 On Jun 18, 2010, at 2:08 AM, oizs wrote: > I've seen people with the same configuration doing 160MB/s writes and 250MB/s+ reads with raid5 so I still think something isn't right. How is that being measured? > And using raid10 with 4 disks is a rather large waste of capacity. If you value performance and reliability more than cost, RAID-10 is a better choice. If you value cost more than performance, RAID-5 is what you use. See: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2006-March/116122.html Regards, -- -Chuck