From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Feb 7 07:14:12 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EBC416A4CE for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 07:14:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from da.mailomat.net (bn.mailomat.net [212.63.50.11]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A2EF43D1D for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 07:14:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ap@bnc.net) Received: This line has been intentionally left blank. Received: from bnc.net (246kmldlynbcpt6z@port-212-202-15-224.reverse.qsc.de [212.202.15.224]) (user=bnc.mail mech=LOGIN bits=0) i17FDajg084120 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 16:13:37 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ap@bnc.net) Received: by bnc.net (CommuniGate Pro PIPE 4.1.8) with PIPE id 495377; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 16:13:34 +0100 Received: from [194.39.192.247] (account ap HELO [194.39.192.247]) by bnc.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 495379 for freebsd-performance@freebsd.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 16:12:59 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) In-Reply-To: <4024B259.8010005@geminix.org> References: <4025B3BE.3020009@qdsdirect.com> <4024B259.8010005@geminix.org> X-Priority: 3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <1CDE346A-5980-11D8-94F9-000A95A0BB90@bnc.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Achim Patzner Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 16:12:58 +0100 To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613) X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact info@mailomat.net for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Subject: Re: Raid 5 performance X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 15:14:12 -0000 Am 07.02.2004 um 10:39 schrieb Uwe Doering: >> 1. FreeBSD has a 16k block size. The RAID card is set at 64k >> Block size(its sweet spot). > A RAID controller normally has nothing to do with the file system's > block size. Are you sure that you're not mixing this up with the > stripe size? He is. > Which stripe size to use with a RAID controller depends on your > performance priorities. I just (painfully) found out that at least for 3ware controllers the most important part of getting performance out of them is picking the right firmware... Right now we're back at "the more recent the better". Did anyone already try the 3ware SATA boards? Achim