From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 4 07:24:49 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B8AB16A468 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2007 07:24:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from juhasaarinen@gmail.com) Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com (wa-out-1112.google.com [209.85.146.179]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5734513C458 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2007 07:24:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from juhasaarinen@gmail.com) Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id j37so1875468waf for ; Mon, 04 Jun 2007 00:24:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=c39Vq1O9ezAh86AVoy8ygQVp9zIqY/oe+pke3ur4DrLdAcSNOj8GCFxNNoT+zxFdP06SYD2d93Khj9EEYEJovUSRWUmBOUpidqKVx3Tt5KQ1ioIR8OZHd/WQKWO6a85otoAgYpaPcRCC9k/+NH6j/d1yrRkWEn2AB6sWu5IA8Po= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=YDu9YAdIfDfH4ZdakD3TwjvA3SbWQ/14g34P3IMQzLEfNw0ghmLbCKMo+DvDCyZsXAGp49qZKA6XP1ZahMDnX2H+/d+FF+ty2kImfAWKusarkTbdJ3Qhnuz1OZyUn84tfdBHq/Al/vSoVT6Q/VNSQnzO/rDCFXNGeJpz8Jmtjes= Received: by 10.114.12.9 with SMTP id 9mr4479213wal.1180940335497; Sun, 03 Jun 2007 23:58:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.130.15 with HTTP; Sun, 3 Jun 2007 23:58:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 18:58:55 +1200 From: "Juha Saarinen" To: tundra@tundraware.com In-Reply-To: <4663AFCC.6080508@tundraware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <46630382.8010901@tundraware.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20070603232531.03dffe40@mailsvr.xxiii.com> <4663AFCC.6080508@tundraware.com> Cc: r17fbsd@xxiii.com, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Strange Intel Mobo Behavior 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: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 07:24:49 -0000 On 6/4/07, Tim Daneliuk wrote: > I get around 50MB/sec or so with about 2G file, so we're in the same > ballpark. In round numbers, this is 1/3 the theoretical throughput > of a SATA-150 or 1/6 that of SATA-300. Now, I *am* curious on what > the bottlenecks are. 50MB/sec isn't a whole lot different that what > I'd expect out of a modern PATA drive. I'm getting 50-55Mbyte/s as well, on an ICH7-equipped board and SATA-150 hard drive. Seems to fall within expectations. The maximum theoretical interface speed isn't the same as what you get from the device connected to it, unfortunately. It's pretty fast still considering the price of the hardware, and if you want more, use RAID. > So, noting the better cabling > and the wide availability of on-board RAID, it sure looks to me like there > is no compelling argument to be made for SATA in non-RAIDed environments. > I'm guessing the drives are the same ones as their PATA counterparts, just > with different interface electronics, so we're not going to see SCSI-like > reliability and/or performance under load. Not entirely correct. SATA is hot-swappable, and you can get drives with command queuing for improved performance. No master/slave jumper fiddling either, which is nice. It's a technology not to be spat at, basically, and it's much cheaper than SCSI. -- Juha http://www.geekzone.co.nz/juha