From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 6 18:31:13 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71738106564A; Wed, 6 May 2009 18:31:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [IPv6:2001:4070:101:2::1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 741738FC13; Wed, 6 May 2009 18:31:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n46IUIVG034027; Wed, 6 May 2009 20:30:18 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from localhost (wojtek@localhost) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) with ESMTP id n46IUH2R034024; Wed, 6 May 2009 20:30:17 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 20:30:17 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar To: Benjamin Krueger In-Reply-To: <4A01C202.8080803@seattlefenix.net> Message-ID: References: <1241610888.16418.64.camel@ompc.insign.local> <20090506084834.61600c42.wmoran@potentialtech.com> <4A01C202.8080803@seattlefenix.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 06 May 2009 18:50:30 +0000 Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Olivier Mueller , Bill Moran , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: filesystem: 12h to delete 32GB of data X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 18:31:14 -0000 >> config, or gmirror/gstripe config. >> >> usually it's far much slower > > Sorry, but my experience with that very server using a P400 controller with > 256MB write cache is very different. My benchmarks showed that controller > using Raid5 (with only 4 disks) is significantly faster than software > layouts. possibly with RAID5, but for sure slower than single drive > The days when hardware controllers could automatically be considered slow are > long gone. unfortunately not.