From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 1 23:19:24 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B007E16A420; Wed, 1 Mar 2006 23:19:24 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from killing@multiplay.co.uk) Received: from multiplay.co.uk (core6.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.23]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2CCC43D45; Wed, 1 Mar 2006 23:19:23 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from killing@multiplay.co.uk) Received: from vader ([212.135.219.179]) by multiplay.co.uk (multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.23]) (MDaemon.PRO.v8.1.3.R) with ESMTP id md50002340917.msg; Wed, 01 Mar 2006 23:18:45 +0000 Message-ID: <007c01c63d86$7bff2ab0$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> From: "Steven Hartland" To: "Mikhail Teterin" , "Julian Elischer" References: <200603010505.k2155HfQ003205@aldan.algebra.com><20060301144124.GA14411@uk.tiscali.com> <4405EFE9.6030807@elischer.org> <200603011634.19617.mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com> Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 23:18:39 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="koi8-u"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2670 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670 X-Spam-Processed: multiplay.co.uk, Wed, 01 Mar 2006 23:18:45 +0000 (not processed: message from valid local sender) X-MDRemoteIP: 212.135.219.179 X-Return-Path: killing@multiplay.co.uk X-MDAV-Processed: multiplay.co.uk, Wed, 01 Mar 2006 23:18:46 +0000 Cc: Brian Candler , "Mikhail T." , current@freebsd.org, sos@freebsd.org Subject: Re: pitiful performance of an SATA150 drive 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, 01 Mar 2006 23:19:24 -0000 I had something similar on a highpoint controller and the problem was the block size the array was created ( no the fs block size ). Have you tried changing the block size? Changing here increased from 8Mb/s -> 150Mb/s iirc when moving to the lowest available block size option. Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mikhail Teterin" > середа 01 березень 2006 14:03, Julian Elischer Ви написали: >> I believe that linux uses bufferring in their 'raw' disks so that you >> may be actually doing larger >> reads and writes than you know.. (of course my knowledge of Linux is a >> bit old so >> they may have changed that) > > Let's not get distracted. dd using bs=1m is still limited to 7Mb/s on writing. ================================================ This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it. In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone (023) 8024 3137 or return the E.mail to postmaster@multiplay.co.uk.