From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 26 15:39:43 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95DBF16A4CE for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:39:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from tierra2.ng.fadesa.es (tierra2.ng.fadesa.es [195.55.55.166]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D990343D1D for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:39:42 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from fandino@ng.fadesa.es) Received: from [195.55.55.163] ([195.55.55.163]) (authenticated bits=0) by tierra2.ng.fadesa.es (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i9QFdf10023816 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:39:41 +0200 Message-ID: <417E6FBD.7060800@ng.fadesa.es> Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:39:41 +0200 From: fandino User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040616 X-Accept-Language: gl, en, es MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-current@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> In-Reply-To: <417D45F1.9090504@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated-Sender: user fandino from 195.55.55.163 X-Virus-Scanned: clamd / ClamAV version 0.75.1, clamav-milter version 0.75c on tierra2 X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: FreeBSD 5.3b7and poor ata performance X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: fandino@ng.fadesa.es List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:39:43 -0000 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.