Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:15:26 +0000 From: Alexander Best <arundel@freebsd.org> To: "Zane C.B." <vvelox@vvelox.net> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS ATA vs. ZFS CAM ATA performance on 8.1 Message-ID: <20100811101526.GA20774@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20100803182143.0986b62d@vixen42.vulpes.vvelox.net> References: <20100727094151.GA68226@freebsd.org> <20100803182143.0986b62d@vixen42.vulpes.vvelox.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue Aug 3 10, Zane C.B. wrote: > On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 09:41:51 +0000 > Alexander Best <arundel@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > hi there, > > > > i just stumpled upon this article over at phoronix which benchmarks > > ZFS ATA vs. ZFS CAM ATA on freebsd 8.1 [1]. it seems read > > performance is really low when CAM ATA is enabled. i remember > > phoronix being famous for posting stupid benchmarks (RELASE vs. > > HEAD and such). however their benchmark results in this example > > seem to be valid. > > > > any comments on that? has performance of ATA CAM increased in HEAD? > > would a UFS2+S+SUJ ATA vs. UFS2+S+SUJ CAM ATA also show equal > > results? > > Not sure about any speed increases with ATA_CAM, but I for one > controller I have in this system I did get a massive boost and a end > to annoying disk issues with AHCI. just noticed somebody started a new discuccion about the article i mention on freebsd-questions@ [1]. cheers. alex [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/freebsd-questions@freebsd.org/msg236201.html -- a13x
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100811101526.GA20774>