From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 25 21:24:30 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54F7C16A417 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2007 21:24:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hg@queue.to) Received: from pickle.queue.to (pickle.queue.to [71.180.69.18]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E60CA13C442 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2007 21:24:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hg@queue.to) Received: (qmail 57708 invoked from network); 25 Jul 2007 17:24:28 -0400 Received: from cally.queue.to (172.16.0.6) by pickle.queue.to with ESMTP; 25 Jul 2007 17:24:28 -0400 Message-ID: <46A7BF8C.5020909@queue.to> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:24:28 -0400 From: Howard Goldstein User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (X11/20070720) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Scott Long References: <46A4E8FA.6010403@queue.to> <46A7B3FB.7010504@queue.to> <46A7B7AF.6080308@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <46A7B7AF.6080308@samsco.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [resolved, naively] Re: geom vs ich through ar device - benchmarks? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 21:24:30 -0000 Scott Long wrote: > Howard Goldstein wrote: >> Testbed: Pair of WDC3200AAKS 320gb SATA, freshly newfsd 10gb filesystem >> mounted with softupdates, remounted after each test >> P4 @ 3ghz on a P4P800 in 6.2-STABLE, single user mode, ICH5R controller >> detects these SATA-II drives inexplicably as SATA-I >> > > ICH5 only support SATA-1. Dang. Does anyone yield SATA-II speeds with the a PCI controller? I'm not sure if 25-30MB/s is even possible with regular PCI >> Of course after this I used gmirror... > > Just so we're clear, the ICH5 doesn't have any firmware and doesn't > > actually do any RAID operations. What is has is hook into the system > BIOS during boot. That hook allows the BIOS to do RAID-like operations > during boot, until the OS takes over control of the devices. After > that, it's up to the OS to do all the RAID work. The 'ar' driver is > still software RAID, just like gmirror. What you've effectively done > merely compare the performance of one software RAID stack to another. > That's certainly an interesting comparison, but maybe not exactly what > you had in mind. > It's helpful - thank you. Do you think I'm correct in assuming the interface is pretty much saturated at this point and if I wanted additional speed I'd need to start thinking bringing in additional or faster interfaces? (ps - apologies in advance if this comes through in html format)