Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 21:31:48 -0700 From: Garrett Cooper <yanefbsd@gmail.com> To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> Cc: oizs <oizs@freemail.hu>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Dell Perc 5/i Performance issues Message-ID: <AANLkTilhQbRKUUpxAhX8USp9TZpj8wXoXZgx0vMR-pK1@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <51F37F5C-A497-46BD-836F-6AF7C83FEF98@samsco.org> References: <4C1AB4C0.4020604@freemail.hu> <4C1C88CD.3000506@stillbilde.net> <4C1C94D4.7040302@freemail.hu> <AANLkTikwO5OGEzdiXnq7KXdROjrW8jlzx7vfmpHGJ1S8@mail.gmail.com> <4C1CA852.6000900@freemail.hu> <AANLkTikTzSft6BEVYB4pLZ39989jVDS5_6xRdLkyeBzH@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTik2T8guyyvr4GK8H2ocJ80DCdy-urGBtjclW2G6@mail.gmail.com> <51F37F5C-A497-46BD-836F-6AF7C83FEF98@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2010, at 5:32 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 4:24 AM, Garrett Cooper <yanefbsd@gmail.com> wro=
te:
>>> On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 4:21 AM, oizs <oizs@freemail.hu> wrote:
>>>> Since I tested it on different kind of os's, and with at least 5 testi=
ng
>>>> applications, I don't think that would be the case.
>>>>
>>>> On 2010.06.19. 13:17, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 2:58 AM, oizs<oizs@freemail.hu> =A0wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I tried almost everything raid 0 1 5 10 with all kind of stripes
>>>>>> 32/64/128
>>>>>> and settings direct io/cached/read-ahead/wt/wb/disk-cache but nothin=
g
>>>>>> seems
>>>>>> to work.
>>>>>> I changed the card to another dell perc 5 which had an older firmwar=
e.
>>>>>> Tried
>>>>>> 4 kind of motherboards even tried changing the os to linux and windo=
ws
>>>>>> xp/7.
>>>>>> In windows I got some funny results 1.3MB/s with write-back and 150M=
B/s
>>>>>> reads with 5 disks in raid0.
>>>>>> I just wanted to have a hw raid with no problems since the motherboa=
rd
>>>>>> 88sx7042 and bsd did not like eachother.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2010.06.19. 11:07, Svein Skogen (Listmail Account) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 18.06.2010 01:50, oizs wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've bought a Dell Perc 5/i because I couldn't make the onboard ma=
rvell
>>>>>>>> 88sx7042 work with 8.0/8.1 or current, but as lucky as I am, the b=
est I
>>>>>>>> can do with 4x1.5tb samsung in raid5 is 60MB/s writes and 90MB/s r=
eads,
>>>>>>>> with bbu/write-back/adaptive-read-ahead.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was expecting at least twice of that, and I'm not sure what can =
I do
>>>>>>>> to get that speed. (I've read man 7 tuning with no success)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As far as I know this controller should be as fast as on other sys=
tems.
>>>>>>>> (Freebsd.org mx1 has one of these cards.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm hoping somebody on the list reads this and helps because I can=
't
>>>>>>>> afford to buy another card.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've lost track of what actual boards Dell has OEMized to make the
>>>>>>> various PERCs, but if I remember somewhat correctly, the PERC5 is
>>>>>>> basically an LSI Megaraid SAS 8308elp with different labels and
>>>>>>> firmware?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If so, I've got that exact controller (minus the dell labels and
>>>>>>> firmware) in my primary storage box here, and yes, you SHOULD be ab=
le to
>>>>>>> get more performance out of it. What's your strip sizes and logical=
disk
>>>>>>> layout?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (I've got the same board running on 8x 1T5 Seagates in RAID5+0, and=
that
>>>>>>> setup easily pulls 5 times the values you're seeing, and by all log=
ic
>>>>>>> you should see about half of what I'm seeing)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dumb question: are you sure that the problem that you're seeing isn't
>>>>> in fact inhibited by the application that you're getting `performance=
'
>>>>> results with?
>>>
>>> If your applications aren't well suited for your hardware's
>>> capabilities, then of course performance will be bad.
>>
>> Furthermore, if the performance applications and your use scenarios
>> are centered around reading, as opposed to writing, there is an option
>> within mficontrol and the mfi(4) interface where you can actually
>> enable read-ahead, instead of writeback (you unfortunately can't
>> enable both scenarios). I realize that this is an artificial
>> improvement in a way, but you should judge whether or not your
>> application will be doing more reading than writing in whatever
>> capacity it's doing...
>>
>> HTH,
>
> No, that doesn't help. =A0I wrote the driver, and I have no flipping clue=
what you're talking about.
Nevermind. It was a misunderstanding of what the subcommands...
- mfiutil cache .. enable
- mfiutil cache .. reads enable
- mfiutil cache .. writes enable
... do.
-Garrett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTilhQbRKUUpxAhX8USp9TZpj8wXoXZgx0vMR-pK1>