From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 1 02:26:10 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 B1AC516A400 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2006 02:26:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@hyperconx.com) Received: from artemis.hyperconx.net (artemis.hyperconx.net [66.181.8.155]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7653543D45 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2006 02:26:10 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from freebsd@hyperconx.com) Received: from adsl-69-225-224-190.dsl.skt2ca.pacbell.net ([69.225.224.190] helo=Production) by artemis.hyperconx.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.54) id 1FPVoY-000AbV-2k for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 18:26:10 -0800 From: "Wil Hatfield" To: Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 18:28:09 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <20060401121712.7498e560@localhost> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670 Importance: Normal Subject: RE: ATA Drive Issues 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: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 02:26:10 -0000 Beto, > fair enough, but you should be able to use some of the performance > testing tools to hammer the server before pushing it live. Suggestions for tools that REALLY hammer? -- Wil Hatfield -----Original Message----- From: Norberto Meijome [mailto:freebsd@meijome.net] Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 5:17 PM To: Wil Hatfield Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ATA Drive Issues On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 18:00:34 -0800 "Wil Hatfield" wrote: > Beto, > > I am currently trying to upgrade one without customers on it to 6.0. > But as was the problem with 5.4 the problems don't show up until the > machine is under high load. So even under 6 I won't have a clue if > the issues are fixed until I get the customers on it. So it doesn't > make alot of difference. fair enough, but you should be able to use some of the performance testing tools to hammer the server before pushing it live. > > I checked with the manufacturer or the machine and they assure me > that they installed brand new high quality 80/40 cables. But then > again what did I expect them to say. So do you know of a good high > quality 80/40 manufacture and where I can buy some new cables? What's > the best of the best? not really - i had my bad experience with cables, just went out, got the ones that a) weren't 10 for a buck , b) actually looked well built. I just went to my preferred provider here in town (eer... "online" actually...but they are local (Syd, AU) ) > > At Supermicro's recommendation I already phlashed to the latest bios. > cool - but my point was not to assume that new bios would be better - it may actually be a step backwards when combined with your other hardware and software. > Well it is good to know you think 6 is better than 5.4. But then > again you are running SATA and we all know 6 runs SATA better. > Hopefully it runs ATA better too. actually, that's the only box with SATA - all the others run PATA or SCSI. B