From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 27 14:39:42 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 079961065673 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 14:39:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-questions@m.gmane.org) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FEC28FC18 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 14:39:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OdlJi-0001bM-Uk for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 16:39:38 +0200 Received: from pool-173-73-7-236.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([173.73.7.236]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 16:39:38 +0200 Received: from nightrecon by pool-173-73-7-236.washdc.fios.verizon.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 16:39:38 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org From: Michael Powell Followup-To: gmane.os.freebsd.questions Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:44:29 -0400 Lines: 44 Message-ID: References: <4C4DDA28.4070205@identry.com> <980022A0-7623-40A5-BCDE-4909A721933D@mac.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: pool-173-73-7-236.washdc.fios.verizon.net Subject: Re: 1 file system, 2 drives? 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: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 14:39:43 -0000 krad wrote: [snip] >> >> If you have hardware controller with RAID capabilities, using native RAID >> is better, otherwise look towards gvinum or maybe ccd; see also: >> >> http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/handbook/raid.html >> [snip] > > I dont agree that hardware raid is necessarily better. It really depends > on what the system is doing. If for example it is purely acting as a filer > I would always use software raid. The main reason for this is that you > benefit from the faster CPU, and more intelligent raid software (zfs). You > are also not tied to a particular hardware platform which makes future > upgrades easier. In the bad old days (early) days hardware RAID was clearly better. This is not as true today as CPUs have scaled. The 3GHz plus quad cores of today have cycles to spare and can actually make software RAID faster in many situations. The questionable area would be RAID 5 and 6. The XOR processing done in the hardware controller is expensive, and hardware RAID is still probably a better way to go here. Other features such as hot swap, hot spare, scrubbing, and maintenance/monitoring utilities will be easier to find in the hardware RAID controller. > If however the system is doing lots of other things and you dont want the > overhead of a software raid solution, it makes sense to offload it to a > hardware solution Very expensive controllers are expensive because the processor on the card has more horsepower, which typically shows up in IO/s numbers as well as throughput as multi-thread queue depths rise. It is a shame to need to spend serious money on these cards just to get the inherent raw processor power even though you may turn off the RAID functionality and instead use ZFS and raidz. There is still a performance advantage to be seen because of the higher processing power available from a controller processor that has bigger umphh. -Mike