From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 8 16:16:25 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 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 4F31516A4DE; Fri, 8 Sep 2006 16:16:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jrhett@mail.meer.net) Received: from outbound0.sv.meer.net (outbound0.mx.meer.net [209.157.153.23]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F186943D46; Fri, 8 Sep 2006 16:16:24 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jrhett@mail.meer.net) Received: from mail.meer.net (mail.meer.net [209.157.152.14]) by outbound0.sv.meer.net (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k88GE3ij009411; Fri, 8 Sep 2006 09:16:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jrhett@mail.meer.net) Received: from mail.meer.net (mail.meer.net [209.157.152.14]) by mail.meer.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/meer) with ESMTP id k88GDQtR015568; Fri, 8 Sep 2006 09:13:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jrhett@mail.meer.net) Received: (from jrhett@localhost) by mail.meer.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) id k88GDQAP015566; Fri, 8 Sep 2006 09:13:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jrhett) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 09:13:26 -0700 From: Jo Rhett To: Steven Hartland Message-ID: <20060908161326.GA14633@svcolo.com> References: <20060907184316.GC56998@svcolo.com> <035701c6d2c3$eb574aa0$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> <001001c6d327$25dc07c0$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <001001c6d327$25dc07c0$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> Organization: svcolo.com User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Cc: amd64@freebsd.org, stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: suggestions for SATA RAID cards 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: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 16:16:25 -0000 > 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