From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 2 20:54:03 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 177E816A4CE for ; Mon, 2 May 2005 20:54:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ford.blinkenlights.nl (ford.blinkenlights.nl [213.204.211.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9D8043D53 for ; Mon, 2 May 2005 20:54:02 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from sten@blinkenlights.nl) Received: from tea.blinkenlights.nl (tea.blinkenlights.nl [192.168.1.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ford.blinkenlights.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id F23703F294; Mon, 2 May 2005 22:54:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: by tea.blinkenlights.nl (Postfix, from userid 101) id 8EFBA272; Mon, 2 May 2005 22:54:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tea.blinkenlights.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 832CD79; Mon, 2 May 2005 22:54:00 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 22:54:00 +0200 (CEST) From: Sten Spans To: Poul-Henning Kamp In-Reply-To: <18194.1115044656@critter.freebsd.dk> Message-ID: References: <18194.1115044656@critter.freebsd.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed cc: Steven Hartland cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org cc: Allen cc: Eric Anderson Subject: Re: Very low disk performance on 5.x X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 20:54:03 -0000 On Mon, 2 May 2005, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <42763906.1040202@centtech.com>, Eric Anderson writes: >>> In message <6.2.1.2.2.20050502094757.037077f0@mail.rfnj.org>, Allen writes: >>> >>> I just want to add: This is why I really would love for us to have >>> a real RAID3 implemetation. >>> >>> RAID3 is not commercially viable because windows cannot use non-512 >>> byte sectors. >>> >>> We can. >>> >>> RAID3 would scream for us. >> >> What about disk arrays that support RAID3? > > Would work for me, but most of them are dumbed down when they do RAID3: > they have to hard format the disks to 128 byte sector sizes and similar > madness in order to support 512 bytes sectors on the RAID3 volume. I would really love the 512 + 8 byte checksum stuff that mainframes and netapps do. Does GEOM simplify implementing something like this ? -- Sten Spans "There is a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in." Leonard Cohen - Anthem