From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 20 16:51:52 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 2392E106564A for ; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 16:51:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from oizs@freemail.hu) Received: from fep14.mx.upcmail.net (fep14.mx.upcmail.net [62.179.121.34]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 746738FC24 for ; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 16:51:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from edge03.upcmail.net ([192.168.13.238]) by viefep14-int.chello.at (InterMail vM.8.01.02.02 201-2260-120-106-20100312) with ESMTP id <20100620165149.IUZU8381.viefep14-int.chello.at@edge03.upcmail.net> for ; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 18:51:49 +0200 Received: from [192.168.0.6] ([213.222.167.104]) by edge03.upcmail.net with edge id YGrn1e05p2FUr7103GroZK; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 18:51:49 +0200 X-SourceIP: 213.222.167.104 Message-ID: <4C1E4722.3050506@freemail.hu> Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 18:51:46 +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> <4C1B3792.9000007@freemail.hu> <4C1C0ED9.8090103@freemail.hu> <2F904ED8-BC95-459F-8536-A889ADDA8D31@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <2F904ED8-BC95-459F-8536-A889ADDA8D31@samsco.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Cloudmark-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=tsaDvxd5BMYuajhtvJLL+Ppe47iaIgCGP4JcOtoQkcg= c=1 sm=0 a=q8OS1GolVHwA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=cgCS_vDn7Ns6TWvZus8A:9 a=S3DFIPqOtPaDzk4tWSMA:7 a=2Fuk72fgQYclTX9QtUyakTVUea8A:4 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA: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: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 16:51:52 -0000 I've tried almost everything now. The battery is probably fine: mfiutil show battery mfi0: Battery State: Manufacture Date: 7/25/2009 Serial Number: 3716 Manufacturer: SMP-PA1.9 Model: DLFR463 Chemistry: LION Design Capacity: 1800 mAh Design Voltage: 3700 mV Current Charge: 99% My results: Settings: Raid5: Stripe: 64k mfiutil cache 0 mfi0 volume mfid0 cache settings: I/O caching: writes write caching: write-back read ahead: none drive write cache: default Raid0: Stripe: 64k mfiutil cache 0 mfi0 volume mfid0 cache settings: I/O caching: writes write caching: write-back read ahead: none drive write cache: default Tried to play around with this as well, with almost no difference. Raid5 read: dd if=/dev/mfid0 of=/dev/null bs=10M 1143+0 records in 1143+0 records out 11985223680 bytes transferred in 139.104134 secs (86160083 bytes/sec) write: dd if=/dev/random of=/dev/mfid0 bs=64K 22747+0 records in 22747+0 records out 1490747392 bytes transferred in 23.921103 secs (62319342 bytes/sec) Raid0 read: dd if=/dev/mfid0 of=/dev/null bs=64K 92470+0 records in 92470+0 records out 6060113920 bytes transferred in 47.926007 secs (126447294 bytes/sec) write: dd if=/dev/random of=/dev/mfid0 bs=64K 16441+0 records in 16441+0 records out 1077477376 bytes transferred in 17.232486 secs (62525939 bytes/sec) I'm writing directly to the device so im not sure any slice issues could cause the problems. -zsozso On 2010.06.20. 4:53, Scott Long wrote: > Two big things can affect RAID-5 performance: > > 1. Battery backup. If you don't have a working battery attached to the card, it will turn off the write-back cache, no matter what you do. Check this. If you're unsure, use the mfiutil tool that I added to FreeBSD a few months ago and send me the output. > > 2. Partition alignment. If you're using classic MBR slices, everything gets misaligned by 63 sectors, making it impossible for the controller to optimize both reads and writes. If the array is used for secondary storage, simply don't use an MBR scheme. If it's used for primary storage, try using GPT instead and setting up your partitions so that they are aligned to large power-of-2 boundaries. > > Scott > > On Jun 18, 2010, at 6:27 PM, oizs wrote >