Re: Very low disk performance on 5.x

From: Steven Hartland (killing_at_multiplay.co.uk)
Date: 05/02/05

  • Next message: Steven Hartland: "Re: Very low disk performance on 5.x" 
    To: <noackjr@alumni.rice.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 22:30:29 +0100

    On 5/2/2005 3:43 PM, Steven Hartland wrote:
    >> Nope thats 5.4-STABLE this should be at the very least
    >> 260Mb/s as thats what the controller has been measured on
    >> linux at even through the FS.
    >
    >Um... not quite. That was the number you listed for S/W RAID5. In that
    >case you're not benchmarking the controller in the same way; the
    >controller is just serving requests with no RAID processing overhead at
    >all. Could you get results for Linux that bypassed the filesystem but
    >used H/W RAID5 like you are with FreeBSD?

    This is true would need to do the H/W RAID5 test on a raw volume
    to be sure that the H/W RAID is not a bottleneck.

        Steve

    ================================================
    This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it.

    In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone (023) 8024 3137
    or return the E.mail to postmaster@multiplay.co.uk.

    _______________________________________________
    freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list
    http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
    To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

  • Next message: Steven Hartland: "Re: Very low disk performance on 5.x"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: FYI: RAID5 unusably unstable through 2.6.14
      ... >> In my experience, at least, using Linux RAID5 results ... >> in a disk storage system which is considerably LESS ... >> reliable than the underlying drives. ... >> Linux kernel releases, is that any transient I/O problem ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • FYI: RAID5 unusably unstable through 2.6.14
      ... Just in case the RAID5 maintainers aren't aware of it: ... The current Linux kernel RAID5 implementation is just ... reliable than the underlying drives. ... Linux kernel releases, is that any transient I/O problem ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: FYI: RAID5 unusably unstable through 2.6.14
      ... of boxes running a variety of 2.4 and 2.6 Linux kernel releases, is that any transient I/O problem results in a critical mass of RAID5 drives being marked 'failed', at which point there is no longer any supported way of retrieving the data on the RAID5 device, even though the underlying drives are all fine, and the underlying data on those drives almost certainly intact. ... I've dealt easily with Linux RAID multi-drive failures that threw all our shiny 3ware RAID hardware into fits it took me an hour to work out. ... systems in response to a transient burst of I/O errors, before it can in good conscience be declared ready for production use -- or at MINIMUM to provide a SUPPORTED way of restoring a butchered RAID5 to last-known-good configuration or such once transient hardware issues have been resolved. ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: Building own NAS
      ... Atom ITX MB running some flavour of Linux. ... 3x500GB drives in RAID5 but later 5x1TB. ... And, no, there are no cheap RAID cards that actually do hardware ... RAID, the cheap ones all do software RAID, but if a far lower ...
      (comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage)