From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 19 11:17:21 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 E63A4106566C for ; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:17:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yanefbsd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-qy0-f182.google.com (mail-qy0-f182.google.com [209.85.216.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A15C88FC18 for ; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:17:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qyk11 with SMTP id 11so575703qyk.13 for ; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 04:17:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=dccXEJnnuuToXLJ+j+JsoXJFN5nmKqEEF/au4uuTAKg=; b=WrEgrLLMggxOZTbh9kdo6Um1nWAB4fvqaAYvAxS6dkb10Q+uKTV8HHOX4VJivvFzsd 6JmG+275Sz1TT0vHN1wO2ts1GV5kLyn0SdiEBS9vTX+0udKADN24SWJ9Y9wCrYVL1dW7 Lql1kxMAf1qiYaetrkudtZ45POwT7o6TkPTPc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=CIq63chWO5S636pPeodfQGBiO2YXHXFlRObxVOt8dSUzTyMSLtyMLs0YR3d7N3pAoi bsFcJIK0RWvlVZHjAnOS4jM1zttiNSP5Z8laXnvyuVpzoqsvWWivMXpavtqRsNEqj2yP 1+3M5CyMZ3BSQ7O3Zj35atck1IHUwfouEPdbA= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.118.75 with SMTP id u11mr1587612qaq.261.1276946239835; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 04:17:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.80.75 with HTTP; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 04:17:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4C1C94D4.7040302@freemail.hu> References: <4C1AB4C0.4020604@freemail.hu> <4C1C88CD.3000506@stillbilde.net> <4C1C94D4.7040302@freemail.hu> Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 04:17:19 -0700 Message-ID: From: Garrett Cooper To: oizs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:17:21 -0000 On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 2:58 AM, oizs wrote: > I tried almost everything raid 0 1 5 10 with all kind of stripes 32/64/128 > and settings direct io/cached/read-ahead/wt/wb/disk-cache but nothing seems > to work. > I changed the card to another dell perc 5 which had an older firmware. Tried > 4 kind of motherboards even tried changing the os to linux and windows xp/7. > In windows I got some funny results 1.3MB/s with write-back and 150MB/s > reads with 5 disks in raid0. > I just wanted to have a hw raid with no problems since the motherboard > 88sx7042 and bsd did not like eachother. > > On 2010.06.19. 11:07, Svein Skogen (Listmail Account) wrote: >> >> On 18.06.2010 01:50, oizs wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I've bought a Dell Perc 5/i because I couldn't make the onboard marvell >>> 88sx7042 work with 8.0/8.1 or current, but as lucky as I am, the best I >>> can do with 4x1.5tb samsung in raid5 is 60MB/s writes and 90MB/s reads, >>> with bbu/write-back/adaptive-read-ahead. >>> >>> I was expecting at least twice of that, and I'm not sure what can I do >>> to get that speed. (I've read man 7 tuning with no success) >>> >>> As far as I know this controller should be as fast as on other systems. >>> (Freebsd.org mx1 has one of these cards.) >>> >>> I'm hoping somebody on the list reads this and helps because I can't >>> afford to buy another card. >>> >> >> I've lost track of what actual boards Dell has OEMized to make the >> various PERCs, but if I remember somewhat correctly, the PERC5 is >> basically an LSI Megaraid SAS 8308elp with different labels and firmware? >> >> If so, I've got that exact controller (minus the dell labels and >> firmware) in my primary storage box here, and yes, you SHOULD be able to >> get more performance out of it. What's your strip sizes and logical disk >> layout? >> >> (I've got the same board running on 8x 1T5 Seagates in RAID5+0, and that >> setup easily pulls 5 times the values you're seeing, and by all logic >> you should see about half of what I'm seeing) Dumb question: are you sure that the problem that you're seeing isn't in fact inhibited by the application that you're getting `performance' results with? HTH, -Garrett