From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 16 13:43:01 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27BA716A422 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:43:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from pi.codefab.com (pi.codefab.com [199.103.21.227]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9687743D45 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:43:00 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pi.codefab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDB285F1C; Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:42:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from pi.codefab.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (pi.codefab.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 00530-03; Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:42:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.3] (pool-68-160-194-11.ny325.east.verizon.net [68.160.194.11]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pi.codefab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03E7A5EFA; Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:42:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <44196B67.6090108@mac.com> Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:43:03 -0500 From: Chuck Swiger Organization: The Courts of Chaos User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Don O'Neil References: <003401c648ba$78e30a60$0300020a@mickey> In-Reply-To: <003401c648ba$78e30a60$0300020a@mickey> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at codefab.com Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Raidtest/3Ware 6000 Throughput X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:43:01 -0000 Don O'Neil wrote: [ ... ] > Does this seem accurate? Should I only be seeing 4.7 MB/second throughput or > is raidtest just not a good way to measure peak throughput? > > Any thoughts would be appreciated. It does not astonish me that you get 5 MB/s on a RAID-5 config, although if you used SCSI and/or a real HW RAID-5 controller with significant cache (ie, 64+ MB) that would help the performance by quite a bit. Use RAID-5 for read-only or read-mostly situations and you'll be better off; use RAID-10 for write-heavy filesystems instead. -- -Chuck