From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 4 08:51:33 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 8730216A41F for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2007 08:51:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from youshi10@u.washington.edu) Received: from mxout2.cac.washington.edu (mxout2.cac.washington.edu [140.142.33.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6501F13C45B for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2007 08:51:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from youshi10@u.washington.edu) Received: from smtp.washington.edu (smtp.washington.edu [140.142.33.7] (may be forged)) by mxout2.cac.washington.edu (8.13.7+UW06.06/8.13.7+UW07.05) with ESMTP id l548pWQH011751 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 4 Jun 2007 01:51:32 -0700 X-Auth-Received: from [192.168.10.45] (c-67-166-149-71.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.166.149.71]) (authenticated authid=youshi10) by smtp.washington.edu (8.13.7+UW06.06/8.13.7+UW07.03) with ESMTP id l548pVr9010979 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 4 Jun 2007 01:51:32 -0700 Message-ID: <4663D293.1000602@u.washington.edu> Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 01:51:31 -0700 From: Garrett Cooper User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Juha Saarinen References: <46630382.8010901@tundraware.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20070603232531.03dffe40@mailsvr.xxiii.com> <4663AFCC.6080508@tundraware.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-PMX-Version: 5.3.1.294258, Antispam-Engine: 2.5.1.298604, Antispam-Data: 2007.6.4.12932 X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIII, Probability=7%, Report='__CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __STOCK_PHRASE_1 0, __USER_AGENT 0' Cc: tundra@tundraware.com, 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 08:51:33 -0000 Juha Saarinen wrote: > 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. Yes, there is software overhead to consider, and the speeds are most likely burst speeds. >> 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. Agreed. SATA is a nice technology, and the price is right. -Garrett