Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:39:41 +0200 From: fandino <fandino@ng.fadesa.es> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 5.3b7and poor ata performance Message-ID: <417E6FBD.7060800@ng.fadesa.es> In-Reply-To: <417D45F1.9090504@freebsd.org> References: <14479.1098695558@critter.freebsd.dk> <417D25E8.6080804@ng.fadesa.es> <200410251928.01536.victor@alf.dyndns.ws> <200410251837.58257.Thomas.Sparrevohn@btinternet.com> <417D3F12.20302@DeepCore.dk> <417D40A1.9030802@ng.fadesa.es> <417D45F1.9090504@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello Scott, Scott Long wrote: >> no, it is my home PC in which I work so it's important stability >> (not overclocking) and disk redundancy (vinum, gmirror) > > > No, I think that he is saying that the ATA silicon is marginal and > probably overclocked by the vendor, not that you have overclocked your > CPU. ok, it was a bad interpretation. >> Also, there is an unresolvable question. Why two 52MB/s disks >> in raid0 has a throughput of 40MB/s and for raid1 18MB/s?? > > > Would you _PLEASE_ stop trying to associate RAID with performance! > RAID is about reliability and reduncdancy, not about speed. Some > cases can give you desirable performance increases as a side effect, > but that is not the primary goal. Specifically in this case, the > GEOM raid classes are fairly new and have not had the benefit of > years of testing. I'd much rather that the focus be on stability > and reliability for them, not speed. Once the primary goals of > RAID are satisfied then we can start looking at performance. The whole story is run a raid 10 configuration, so I have the best of both words, redundancy with gmirror and speed with gstripe. I don't see why it couldn't be that way and because this RAID0 performance is important in my case.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?417E6FBD.7060800>