From owner-freebsd-hardware Thu Aug 10 14:27:42 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Received: from mass.osd.bsdi.com (mass.osd.bsdi.com [204.216.28.234]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18FC237BC63 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 14:27:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from msmith@mass.osd.bsdi.com) Received: from mass.osd.bsdi.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mass.osd.bsdi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA01627; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 14:38:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from msmith@mass.osd.bsdi.com) Message-Id: <200008102138.OAA01627@mass.osd.bsdi.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: Mike Tancsa Cc: hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 3ware and RAID0 vs RAID 1 In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 10 Aug 2000 17:16:38 EDT." <4.3.2.7.0.20000810171454.04748db0@marble.sentex.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 14:38:55 -0700 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > >Newfs isn't a representative case with these cards, as newfs doesn't > >align the data it writes and the driver has to copy the data around > >(expensive). The array itself should still perform pretty well (read > >speeds should be pretty good especially). > > Actually, on a 128M system, it died while doing a 500M bonnie write.. i.e. > it just hung there. I will test some more tomorrow when back at the office > and provide more info. > > Aug 10 16:16:46 smtp4 /kernel: twed0: <3ware RAID unit> on twe0 > Aug 10 16:16:46 smtp4 /kernel: twed0: 14323MB (29334784 sectors) Ok, thanks. It *definitely* shouldn't "just hang" at all. -- ... every activity meets with opposition, everyone who acts has his rivals and unfortunately opponents also. But not because people want to be opponents, rather because the tasks and relationships force people to take different points of view. [Dr. Fritz Todt] To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hardware" in the body of the message