Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x
- From: Danial Thom <danial_thom@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 15:59:23 -0700 (PDT)
I'm not quote sure what you're trying to say,
becuase clearly your not using a SATA controller,
so you can't say the drives work in freebsd 4.x.
And I only used Areca because its what I had
lying around. I didn't try to make any specific
analysis, or say that SATA was faster than scsi,
only that the new drives are very fast. You can't
compare scsi and sata directly really, becuase
they don't use the same drivers or the same
cards.
there's a lot more people running squid on
freebsd then running usenet servers, so its not
likely that your "analysis" means much to anyone
other than yourself.
DT
--- Mike Horwath <drechsau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:03:04AM -0700,http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
Danial Thom wrote:
We come from Earth; we're just more informed.The
WD740ADFD's do NOT work on Freebsd 4.x. I'msure
you are talking about the WD740GD. I DID saythe
NEW ones. They are a lot faster than the GDs.I
used them with FreeBSD 4.x with an Areca SATAFujitsu
card and they performed similarly to 15K
SCSIs on a heavily loaded squid system.
So you required a SATAII controller for an SATA
disk?
squid? Sure, somewhat heavy access.
How about UseNet?
I have 16 WD740ADFD disks in a RAID5 config
(with a hot spare even!)
that is just cranking along. Economics said I
had to go this route,
not performance.
Since I needed *more* spindles and needed
*more* space, I had to go
this route. It performs adequately.
It replaced the 6x73GB disks at 15KRPM -
performance was *much* better
with the SCSI, but at 2.7TB per day, I needed
*more* retention to feed
back to my peers and my internal network.
Also when you are using a SATA drive that*works*
in 4.x its running in some reduced transfermode,
so you can't expect to get optimalperformance or
anything close. So "works" is almost aeuphemism
for "doesn't barf", but they don't reallywork
well no matter how good the drive is.
More spew.
For my needs, its cheaper to go with SCSIthan to
buy the sata card as there's only about a$250.
difference in the SCSI hardware, and I don'tuse
up my slot. Hence, the silliness of operatingin
the FreeBSD camp.
Ah, cheaper, now we know the reason for the
difference.
It sure isn't performance.
Note that the drives work with 6.x but squidchoice.
performance doesn't measure up, so again, 4.x
with SCSI is the best bang for the buck
Change controllers and don't be a wank.
I went down the path of ARECA controllers for
my news spool project
(30TB of disk) and the controllers were fast
for access, but randomly
dropped disks or volumes for no reason I could
find. I loved the
speed, hated the randomness.
I changed down the AMCC path, I lose some
performance (not worth
posting numbers, it was under 5%), but no more
issues.
FreeBSD 6, Opteron systems and 64bit.
The reason for this part of the post? To show
it isn't an issue of
not wanting to embrace new
hardare/architectures, but that 32bit
operating systems and hardware isn't dead, for
any of the reasons
given so far in this thread.
--
Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"
- References:
- Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x
- From: Mike Horwath
- Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x
- Prev by Date: Re: Help with improving mysql performance on 6.2PRE
- Next by Date: Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x
- Previous by thread: Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x
- Next by thread: Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
