Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 16:58:03 +0100 From: "Koen Smits" <kgysmits@gmail.com> To: fbsd@dannysplace.net Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Jeremy Chadwick <koitsu@freebsd.org>, freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Areca vs. ZFS performance testing. Message-ID: <b072dc420901090758o4190be22sa747862d9aa77abf@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <496712A2.4020800@dannysplace.net> References: <20081031033208.GA21220@icarus.home.lan> <CEDCDD3E-B908-44BF-9D00-7B73B3C15878@anduin.net> <4920E1DD.7000101@dannysplace.net> <F55CD13C-8117-4D34-9C35-618D28F9F2DE@spry.com> <20081117070818.GA22231@icarus.home.lan> <496549D9.7010003@dannysplace.net> <b072dc420901072348n7d094937u89b6d24959f8ae3d@mail.gmail.com> <4966B6B1.8020502@dannysplace.net> <b072dc420901090046v77bc5407xacda5e65fc6ad7bf@mail.gmail.com> <496712A2.4020800@dannysplace.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Please let us know what Areca says about the caching. If you ask me, these results definitely are cached. On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 10:02, Danny Carroll <fbsd@dannysplace.net> wrote: > Koen Smits wrote: > > Those numbers are pretty good, right? Who needs onboard XOR anyway :) > > > > Those numbers are great, but I would love to know that writes to the > disks are also protected by the battery backup. If not then I'll be > forced to use either hardware raid5/6 or perhaps some other > configuration. Maybe 6 stripe sets in a raidz array? > > At the end of the day however I really don't care about the performance, > even the slowest of the tests I did would be fast enough to saturate a > gigabit ethernet port, which is way fast enough for me. But its an > interesting set of tests... > > -D >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b072dc420901090758o4190be22sa747862d9aa77abf>