Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 13:00:45 +1200 From: Mark Kirkwood <markir@paradise.net.nz> To: Steven Hartland <killing@multiplay.co.uk> Cc: amd64@freebsd.org, Jo Rhett <jrhett@svcolo.com>, stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: suggestions for SATA RAID cards Message-ID: <4502123D.705@paradise.net.nz> In-Reply-To: <001001c6d327$25dc07c0$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> References: <44EC0B9B.5020705@withagen.nl> <003f01c6c68d$64688e60$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> <20060907184316.GC56998@svcolo.com> <035701c6d2c3$eb574aa0$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> <FEDA1103-8D83-4D43-9731-7E3D9D2DB1E5@svcolo.com> <001001c6d327$25dc07c0$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Steven Hartland wrote: > I believe you are wrong here and my own performance tests here > backs this up, showing it keeps up with the more expensive areca > in a number of areas notably, providing 180MB/s in sequential > read tests from a 5 disk array. > Steve, Just out of interest what RAID level was the 5 disk array? - as 180Mb/s from an Areca 5 disk RAID0 or RAID5 array is not that good - my old 3Ware 7506 with 4 Maxtor IDE RAID0 gets 175Mb/s. Obviously if your array is RAID10, the 180MB/s is very good! If you are using RAID0|5, then something is slowing you down (possible clash between disk firmware and the Areca, or unfortunate choice of strip chunk size). Cheers Markhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4502123D.705>