Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:59:50 +0300 From: Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org> To: =?UTF-8?B?RGFnLUVybGluZyBTbcO4cmdyYXY=?= <des@des.no> Cc: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org>, FreeBSD-Current <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org>, Richard Tector <richardtector@thekeelecentre.com>, freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Switchover to CAM ATA? Message-ID: <4BD6EDD6.8010403@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <86och53tpl.fsf@ds4.des.no> References: <4BD06BD9.6030401@FreeBSD.org> <4BD099E6.6000402@FreeBSD.org> <4BD0A689.8000508@thekeelecentre.com> <4BD0ACD2.3040805@FreeBSD.org> <86och53tpl.fsf@ds4.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> writes: >> Richard Tector <richardtector@thekeelecentre.com> writes: >>> Could I also add that the removal of ataraid would affect those >>> users who dual-boot with Windows and rely on the psuedo-raid >>> provided by most Intel chipsets to be able to share the same pair of >>> disks. >> Well, this won't be a problem if we have GEOM classes that can >> understand metadata created by the ATA RAID BIOS(es). > > Most pseudo-raid kit has nifty features like checksum offloading, > composite writes etc. which can improve performance considerably. You > can't access those from GEOM. Have you ever seen them documented? Does the need to specifically handle dozens of incompatible implementations with limited resources worth those (probably not major) benefits? -- Alexander Motin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4BD6EDD6.8010403>