Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 19:05:10 -0600 (MDT) From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Barrett Lyon <blyon@blyon.com> Cc: adam radford <aradford@gmail.com>, Kip Macy <kip.macy@gmail.com>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Functional RAID controller? Message-ID: <20070508185332.B57856@pooker.samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <AA1B8B95-0E73-4FDC-BB35-52EB1123AF3E@blyon.com> References: <9FC464A4-4405-4C10-A7CB-0A424EA4EAD3@blyon.com> <b1bc6a000705081405s51c76ac4yf559bfd83affee8c@mail.gmail.com> <602A8820-F05C-457A-A20A-E258BD0FEDC5@blyon.com> <464102D1.2000706@samsco.org> <b1fa29170705081612i43aedf70x8ba3e4a66f66380f@mail.gmail.com> <AA1B8B95-0E73-4FDC-BB35-52EB1123AF3E@blyon.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 8 May 2007, Barrett Lyon wrote: >> In fairness, if you care about network bandwidth more than stability, >> HEAD is the place to be. On my hardware if_mxge can get 9.3Gbps and >> if_cxgb can get full line rate. if_mxge isn't even in RELENG_6 and >> if_cxgb performance is at least 25% worse on RELENG_6. > > I can concur, that's why there is so much pressure to use HEAD, it's a > substantial difference and all the network performance is found in HEAD, but > it's useless if my disk arrays crash after writing some logs. :) > That statement is a bit overly broad and can lead to bad rumors :-) Most storage drivers work pretty well right now. So I can understand your feustration with your case, and hopefully Adam and I will have a resolution soon. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070508185332.B57856>