Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 09:13:26 -0700 From: Jo Rhett <jrhett@svcolo.com> To: Steven Hartland <killing@multiplay.co.uk> Cc: amd64@freebsd.org, stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: suggestions for SATA RAID cards Message-ID: <20060908161326.GA14633@svcolo.com> In-Reply-To: <001001c6d327$25dc07c0$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> References: <20060907184316.GC56998@svcolo.com> <035701c6d2c3$eb574aa0$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> <FEDA1103-8D83-4D43-9731-7E3D9D2DB1E5@svcolo.com> <001001c6d327$25dc07c0$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Jo Rhett wrote: > >FYI, several people have claimed that the 1820a is "hardware" -- this > >is untrue. It's hardware accelerated, but all of the raid logic is > >in the driver. It's sludgeware", not hardware raid. Performance > >tests against a real hardware raid adapter will demonstrate what I > >mean. On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 06:16:09AM +0100, Steven Hartland wrote: > I believe you are wrong here and my own performance tests here > backs this up, showing it keeps up with the more expensive areca > in a number of areas notably, providing 180MB/s in sequential > read tests from a 5 disk array. It seems clear you don't understand the difference between driver-based raid support and hardware-based raid. Unless you just forgot to mention the CPU load level you had artificially added prior to starting this test... -- Jo Rhett senior geek SVcolo : Silicon Valley Colocation
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060908161326.GA14633>