Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 16:03:16 +0200 From: Claus Guttesen <kometen@gmail.com> To: Eric Anderson <anderson@centtech.com> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: some simple nfs-benchmarks on 5.4 RC2 Message-ID: <b41c7552050420070350db3315@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <426642D4.8000202@centtech.com> References: <b41c75520504190418308f94cc@mail.gmail.com> <b41c75520504190455542071f7@mail.gmail.com> <4264F8A8.3080405@centtech.com> <b41c755205041906145fc4719c@mail.gmail.com> <426507DC.50409@centtech.com> <b41c7552050419065519057cb2@mail.gmail.com> <42650EB2.4040409@centtech.com> <b41c75520504200117608f8e31@mail.gmail.com> <b41c7552050420014730ae39e1@mail.gmail.com> <426642D4.8000202@centtech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> That's about what I expected. RAID 5 depends on fast xor, so a slow proc= essor > in a hardware RAID5 box will slow you down a lot. >=20 > You should try taking the two RAID5's (6 disks each) created on your orig= inal > controller and striping those together (RAID 50) - this should get you so= me > better performance, probably not as close as the amr device, but I would = guess > somewhere in the 80-90mb/s range. This can't be done in hardware, since atabeast only supports raid 0, 1, 4 and 5. But I will definitively have this in my mind this when we get a new storage-system (a different one). Thank you for your guidance. regards Claus
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b41c7552050420070350db3315>