From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 3 23:39:43 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6ADB1065678 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 23:39:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vvelox@vvelox.net) Received: from vulpes.vvelox.net (sula-ki.vvelox.net [99.69.115.46]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AA498FC19 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 23:39:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vixen42.vulpes.vvelox.net (unknown [192.168.14.2]) (Authenticated sender: vvelox) by vulpes.vvelox.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0DF2B84D; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 18:23:02 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 18:21:43 -0500 From: "Zane C.B." To: Alexander Best Message-ID: <20100803182143.0986b62d@vixen42.vulpes.vvelox.net> In-Reply-To: <20100727094151.GA68226@freebsd.org> References: <20100727094151.GA68226@freebsd.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.6 (GTK+ 2.20.1; amd64-portbld-freebsd8.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/ZaeGB8.kWJhdnsiK_tf1CwC"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS ATA vs. ZFS CAM ATA performance on 8.1 X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 23:39:43 -0000 --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 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--