From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 19 11:21:59 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 2F163106564A for ; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:21:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from oizs@freemail.hu) Received: from fep17.mx.upcmail.net (fep17.mx.upcmail.net [62.179.121.37]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82ECB8FC0C for ; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:21:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from edge03.upcmail.net ([192.168.13.238]) by viefep17-int.chello.at (InterMail vM.8.01.02.02 201-2260-120-106-20100312) with ESMTP id <20100619112156.LFAW21441.viefep17-int.chello.at@edge03.upcmail.net> for ; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 13:21:56 +0200 Received: from [192.168.0.6] ([213.222.167.104]) by edge03.upcmail.net with edge id XnMu1e06A2FUr7103nMvCN; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 13:21:56 +0200 X-SourceIP: 213.222.167.104 Message-ID: <4C1CA852.6000900@freemail.hu> Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 13:21:54 +0200 From: oizs User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100512 Thunderbird/3.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org References: <4C1AB4C0.4020604@freemail.hu> <4C1C88CD.3000506@stillbilde.net> <4C1C94D4.7040302@freemail.hu> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Cloudmark-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=BX1z5e3lS7RAKjOkUI/uDpZ/pP4xz0N/VImyOZX9Sfk= c=1 sm=0 a=q8OS1GolVHwA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=6I5d2MoRAAAA:8 a=tuDog-1FAIi7E6ruvPQA:9 a=_Ekh5yll71A9zUNXudcnogbh2d8A:4 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=SV7veod9ZcQA:10 a=HpAAvcLHHh0Zw7uRqdWCyQ==:117 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 11:21:59 -0000 Since I tested it on different kind of os's, and with at least 5 testing applications, I don't think that would be the case. -zsozso On 2010.06.19. 13:17, Garrett Cooper wrote: > 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 > > >