Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 13:00:45 +1200 From: Mark Kirkwood <markir@paradise.net.nz> To: Steven Hartland <killing@multiplay.co.uk> Cc: amd64@freebsd.org, Jo Rhett <jrhett@svcolo.com>, stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: suggestions for SATA RAID cards Message-ID: <4502123D.705@paradise.net.nz> In-Reply-To: <001001c6d327$25dc07c0$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> References: <44EC0B9B.5020705@withagen.nl> <003f01c6c68d$64688e60$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> <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
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. > Steve, Just out of interest what RAID level was the 5 disk array? - as 180Mb/s from an Areca 5 disk RAID0 or RAID5 array is not that good - my old 3Ware 7506 with 4 Maxtor IDE RAID0 gets 175Mb/s. Obviously if your array is RAID10, the 180MB/s is very good! If you are using RAID0|5, then something is slowing you down (possible clash between disk firmware and the Areca, or unfortunate choice of strip chunk size). Cheers Mark
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4502123D.705>