From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 9 01:05:16 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A7A116A402 for ; Wed, 9 May 2007 01:05:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54F8B13C447 for ; Wed, 9 May 2007 01:05:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from pooker.samsco.home (pooker.samsco.home [192.168.254.1]) by pooker.samsco.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l4915ATN004907; Tue, 8 May 2007 19:05:10 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 19:05:10 -0600 (MDT) From: Scott Long To: Barrett Lyon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070508185332.B57856@pooker.samsco.org> References: <9FC464A4-4405-4C10-A7CB-0A424EA4EAD3@blyon.com> <602A8820-F05C-457A-A20A-E258BD0FEDC5@blyon.com> <464102D1.2000706@samsco.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0.2 (pooker.samsco.org [192.168.254.1]); Tue, 08 May 2007 19:05:10 -0600 (MDT) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.5 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.1.8 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) on pooker.samsco.org Cc: adam radford , Kip Macy , freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Functional RAID controller? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 01:05:16 -0000 On Tue, 8 May 2007, Barrett Lyon wrote: >> In fairness, if you care about network bandwidth more than stability, >> HEAD is the place to be. On my hardware if_mxge can get 9.3Gbps and >> if_cxgb can get full line rate. if_mxge isn't even in RELENG_6 and >> if_cxgb performance is at least 25% worse on RELENG_6. > > I can concur, that's why there is so much pressure to use HEAD, it's a > substantial difference and all the network performance is found in HEAD, but > it's useless if my disk arrays crash after writing some logs. :) > That statement is a bit overly broad and can lead to bad rumors :-) Most storage drivers work pretty well right now. So I can understand your feustration with your case, and hopefully Adam and I will have a resolution soon. Scott