Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:45:49 +1000 From: Danny Carroll <fbsd@dannysplace.net> To: Jeremy Chadwick <koitsu@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: new server motherboard with SATA II Message-ID: <48649AAD.4050806@dannysplace.net> In-Reply-To: <20080627073612.GA29122@eos.sc1.parodius.com> References: <486450DB.4000907@dannysplace.net> <20080627040545.GA21856@eos.sc1.parodius.com> <4864769C.4050002@dannysplace.net> <20080627053314.GA24239@eos.sc1.parodius.com> <48649424.4010700@dannysplace.net> <20080627073612.GA29122@eos.sc1.parodius.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > No, it should not happen at idle. You said "interrupt usage across 5 > disks", which I read to mean "interrupt usage is very high during I/O > across a zpool consisting of 5 disks". I misunderstood. > > IRQ sharing could result in what you see, but it sounds more like some > weird interrupt routing/bug that might be specific to that Asus board. That's kinda what I fear might be the case. > The FreeBSD Handbook has a list of hardware. Anything that has its own > xxx(4) driver (e.g. twa(4), twe(4), arcmsr(4), etc.) will suffice. Many > of these cards handle SATA disks which appear as daX in FreeBSD, since > they act as SCSI controllers. SCSI CAM on FreeBSD is quite reliable. > > Currently, the best SATA controllers I've seen that have native FreeBSD > support (meaning the vendor supports FreeBSD) are Areca controllers. I > have no experience with them due to their cost, but they are *very* > fast. Ouch.... Are the any other options? I'd be happy with a card that simply exposed the drive to FreeBSD rather than implemented Raid. Although I won't rule hardware raid out either (given a product that was fast enough). -D
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?48649AAD.4050806>