From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 1 20:25:00 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64B4F16A420 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2006 20:25:00 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from sven@dmv.com) Received: from smtp-gw-cl-c.dmv.com (smtp-gw-cl-c.dmv.com [216.240.97.41]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB88343D48 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2006 20:24:59 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from sven@dmv.com) Received: from mail-gw-cl-b.dmv.com (mail-gw-cl-b.dmv.com [216.240.97.39]) by smtp-gw-cl-c.dmv.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k21KOwYZ065145; Wed, 1 Mar 2006 15:24:58 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from sven@dmv.com) Received: from lanshark.dmv.com (lanshark.dmv.com [216.240.97.46]) by mail-gw-cl-b.dmv.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id k21KOw0u044187; Wed, 1 Mar 2006 15:24:58 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from sven@dmv.com) From: Sven Willenberger To: Mike Tancsa In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.0.20060301150537.09d7b700@64.7.153.2> References: <1140727266.23965.43.camel@lanshark.dmv.com> <20060223205342.GA91253@xor.obsecurity.org> <1141240258.1013.19.camel@lanshark.dmv.com> <6.2.3.4.0.20060301150537.09d7b700@64.7.153.2> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 15:26:46 -0500 Message-Id: <1141244806.1013.26.camel@lanshark.dmv.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.48 on 216.240.97.39 Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: LSI Megaraid (amr) performance woes X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 20:25:00 -0000 On Wed, 2006-03-01 at 15:08 -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote: > At 02:10 PM 01/03/2006, Sven Willenberger wrote: > > >I cvsupped a 6.1 prerelease and found no performance improvements. I did > >some further tests and the performance issues seem very specific to the > >mirroring aspect of the raid: > > > I am not familiar with the LSI cards, but with older 3ware and the > ARECA cards, the raid sets when in any sort of redundancy mode must > initialize in the background before normal use. Until that is > complete, performance is seriously slow. Is the LSI doing that, and > perhaps just not telling you ? > > ---Mike > I had thought of this too so I disabled the rapid (background) initialization option and let the raids build to completion the slow way. So unless it is still building even after it is done (or is doing some other odd processor-intensive crc checking or something) I don't think this is the source of the problem. Sven