Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 18:21:43 -0500 From: "Zane C.B." <vvelox@vvelox.net> To: Alexander Best <arundel@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS ATA vs. ZFS CAM ATA performance on 8.1 Message-ID: <20100803182143.0986b62d@vixen42.vulpes.vvelox.net> In-Reply-To: <20100727094151.GA68226@freebsd.org> References: <20100727094151.GA68226@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Sig_/ZaeGB8.kWJhdnsiK_tf1CwC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 09:41:51 +0000 Alexander Best <arundel@freebsd.org> wrote: > hi there, >=20 > i just stumpled upon this article over at phoronix which benchmarks > ZFS ATA vs. ZFS CAM ATA on freebsd 8.1 [1]. it seems read > performance is really low when CAM ATA is enabled. i remember > phoronix being famous for posting stupid benchmarks (RELASE vs. > HEAD and such). however their benchmark results in this example > seem to be valid. >=20 > any comments on that? has performance of ATA CAM increased in HEAD? > would a UFS2+S+SUJ ATA vs. UFS2+S+SUJ CAM ATA also show equal > results? Not sure about any speed increases with ATA_CAM, but I for one controller I have in this system I did get a massive boost and a end to annoying disk issues with AHCI. --Sig_/ZaeGB8.kWJhdnsiK_tf1CwC Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkxYpIoACgkQC1tfcMGJid6qJACgqtHdeABJaYRdzfx5hW3L9xFk 9J4An36x90+Y1tNoLBJF+3l7NokkJ4DW =U6be -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/ZaeGB8.kWJhdnsiK_tf1CwC--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100803182143.0986b62d>