From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 20 03:45:26 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8745016A4CE; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 03:45:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from CPE000103d44c07-CM000f9f7ae88c.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com (CPE000103d44c07-CM000f9f7ae88c.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [69.193.222.195]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20CA143D55; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 03:45:26 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mikej@rogers.com) Received: from 192.168.0.1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) with ESMTP id 6C2C52954A2; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 23:45:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 192.168.0.188 (SquirrelMail authenticated user mikej); by 192.168.0.1 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 23:45:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <1230.192.168.0.188.1098243918.squirrel@192.168.0.188> In-Reply-To: <4175D269.208@freebsd.org> References: <41715E7F.7060509@ng.fadesa.es> <20041018100045.f8koww0skcco0woo@www.sweetdreamsracing.biz> <4173D66F.6010200@DeepCore.dk> <4173F2E9.7010407@ng.fadesa.es> <417406E3.9010706@DeepCore.dk> <4174FD04.8040000@ng.fadesa.es> <20041019104525.ikgw8kcw8sw480os@www.sweetdreamsracing.biz> <4129.192.168.0.188.1098211592.squirrel@192.168.0.188> <20041019200908.GA655@frontfree.net> <4259.192.168.0.188.1098217092.squirrel@192.168.0.188> <20041020024908.GA3797@frontfree.net> <4175D269.208@freebsd.org> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 23:45:18 -0400 (EDT) From: "Mike Jakubik" To: "Scott Long" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.3a X-Mailer: SquirrelMail/1.4.3a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-wettoast-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-wettoast-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: mikej@rogers.com cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 5.3b7and poor ata performance X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 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: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 03:45:26 -0000 Scott Long said: > Xin LI wrote: >> Hi, Mike >> >> On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 04:18:12PM -0400, Mike Jakubik wrote: >> >>>Xin LI said: >>> >>> >>>>Unfortunatelly I can reproduce similiar problem when using Ultra320 >>>> under >>>>mpt(4) and a version of Adaptec's SCSI card (maybe aic, or something >>>> else, >>>>which I have to go to my office to find out). Additionally the problem >>>> is >>>>not FreeBSD specific, with a Linux installation, it shows poor >>>> performance >>>>too. (No RAID configuration, though). >>>> >>>>I found that block size does influence performance greatly. With a >>>> block >>>>size of 131072 I got peak read performance at about 70MB/s, but that's >>>>all. >>>>I did not have the necessary knowledge at the time I have did the test >>>>last >>>>month, so I got only the result and thought that I have made something >>>>wrong and hoped someone to correct me with no luck :-( >>> >>>Hrm, i tried your block size, and the performance is even worse: >>> >>># dd if=/dev/da0 of=/dev/null bs=131072 count=2000 >>>2000+0 records in >>>2000+0 records out >>>262144000 bytes transferred in 8.688651 secs (30170852 bytes/sec) >> >> >> You may want to try other block sizes, like 65536, 262144, 524288, >> 1048576 >> or so. The peak performance block size depends heavily on hardware... >> >> Cheers, > > This won't really matter. physio will chop the blocks up into 128k > segments, and GEOM will cut them again into 64k segments. Other than > a minor amount of coelscing in these stages, it won't make a difference. Considering phk's comments, i still find it odd that a scsi based (brand new seagate cheetahs) raid 10 array would perform so poorly in transfer rates compared to a single ata drive. I ran diskinfo -t on the array, and it just confirmed that the transfer rates are lacking, the seek rate is however 3x as fast as the ata drives.