From owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 27 05:12:05 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C8BE106566B for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:12:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd@dannysplace.net) Received: from mail.dannysplace.net (mail.dannysplace.net [213.133.54.210]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 365F18FC13 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:12:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd@dannysplace.net) Received: from 60-242-243-193.static.tpgi.com.au ([60.242.243.193] helo=[192.168.10.10]) by mail.dannysplace.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1KC6Fe-000FD3-4f; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:12:04 +1000 Message-ID: <4864769C.4050002@dannysplace.net> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:11:56 +1000 From: Danny Carroll User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeremy Chadwick References: <486450DB.4000907@dannysplace.net> <20080627040545.GA21856@eos.sc1.parodius.com> In-Reply-To: <20080627040545.GA21856@eos.sc1.parodius.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated-User: danny X-Authenticator: plain X-Sender-Verify: SUCCEEDED (sender exists & accepts mail) X-Exim-Version: 4.68 (build at 19-Oct-2007 16:23:56) X-Date: 2008-06-27 15:12:02 X-Connected-IP: 60.242.243.193:4438 X-Message-Linecount: 88 X-Body-Linecount: 74 X-Message-Size: 3988 X-Body-Size: 3391 X-Received-Count: 1 X-Recipient-Count: 2 X-Local-Recipient-Count: 2 X-Local-Recipient-Defer-Count: 0 X-Local-Recipient-Fail-Count: 0 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 60.242.243.193 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: fbsd@dannysplace.net X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.1 (2007-05-02) on ferrari.dannysplace.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=8.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL, DKIM_POLICY_SIGNSOME,TVD_RCVD_IP autolearn=disabled version=3.2.1 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail.dannysplace.net) Cc: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: new server motherboard with SATA II X-BeenThere: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: fbsd@dannysplace.net List-Id: General discussion of FreeBSD hardware List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:12:05 -0000 Jeremy, thanks for your response. Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > SATA150 and SATA300 both work just fine on FreeBSD, but its dependent > upon what chipset you go with. I would strongly recommend you go with a > board/system that uses Intel's ICH7, 8, or 9 southbridge. I have > extensive experience using these in production environments, and they > are very reliable, plus fast. FreeBSD works quite well with them. I do have a board with an ICH10 chipset but the SATA drives are detected as UDMA-33. I guess the ICH* chipsets would not support AMD64, being an intel chip. > Second, I wouldn't bother considering using Intel MatrixRAID (which all > of the above chipsets support) for any sort of failover for your root/OS > disk, in case you're tempted to try it. FreeBSD has bugs pertaining to > such support (see below Wiki URL for some examples). Yeah, I'm not so keen of the modern trend to have on-board raid. I'd rather keep it simple and let FreeBSD handle it. Root disk will not be raid at all. > Third, I cannot recommend nVidia chipsets, because there have been > numerous reports recently and in the past where the SATA disks are being > detected as UDMA33. I believe there are some ATI/AMD chipsets which are > doing the same. There is a rumour that the operational speed of the > disks is still SATA150/300, and just that FreeBSD is labelling the > negotiated speed wrong, but my recommendation is not to risk it. Hmmm, some people say nforce4 chipsets are cool, some not... It's hard to know which way to go. > Fourth, because you'll likely have multiple disks in a ZFS zpool, you > should probably be aware of the problem that haunts some users from time > to time (re: DMA errors). I've seen it on old ATA hardware. > http://wiki.freebsd.org/JeremyChadwick/ATA_issues_and_troubleshooting > >> I'd be willing to go with intel arch although from a ZFS perspective it >> sounds like AMD64 is better. > > There was a recent discussion on developers@ (which is private) about > some topics, which eventually lead into a discussion about ZFS, tuning, > and a 2GB kmem limit in FreeBSD (which affects amd64 too). I can't copy > the conversation/thread because developers@ has a strict "do not > disclose" policy. I thought that the 2gb limit was less of a problem for AMD64 because of the addressing used. > Just be aware you ***will*** need to tune ZFS on FreeBSD to make it > as reliable as possible. We'll like I said, I'd be willing to jump on a list and provide info etc about my setup. I plan to have it running on a test bench with lots of IO for a week or so before I start using it. Even then the data will not be critical so if it breaks then I can rebuild without hassle. System disk will be UFS2 to keep it simple... I've got it running on desktop hardware (ASUS P5Q board with ICH5) while I wait for a decision on a permanent Motherboard. With this setup I see about 60mb write speeds on ZFS across 5 disks. I've done the basic tuning suggested in the Wiki. One thing I notice is that the CPU is used for 30% on Interrupts. It was firewire first, so I disabled it in the BIOS, then it went to UHCI so I disabled all USB ports. Now it is on the ATA controller. All of this was on the same interrupt (19). I'm thinking of getting a couple of Promise SATA-300 TX4 IO cards (non-raid). Perhaps that will offload the CPU. -D