From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 27 14:17:03 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1275D106566C; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:17:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from smtp.des.no (smtp.des.no [194.63.250.102]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C34AD8FC0C; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:17:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ds4.des.no (des.no [84.49.246.2]) by smtp.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id C200D1FFC51; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:17:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ds4.des.no (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 656DB84523; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:16:29 +0200 (CEST) From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= To: Alexander Motin References: <4BD06BD9.6030401@FreeBSD.org> <4BD099E6.6000402@FreeBSD.org> <4BD0A689.8000508@thekeelecentre.com> <4BD0ACD2.3040805@FreeBSD.org> <86och53tpl.fsf@ds4.des.no> <4BD6EDD6.8010403@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:16:29 +0200 In-Reply-To: <4BD6EDD6.8010403@FreeBSD.org> (Alexander Motin's message of "Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:59:50 +0300") Message-ID: <86fx2h3rr6.fsf@ds4.des.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.95 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Maxim Sobolev , FreeBSD-Current , Richard Tector , freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Switchover to CAM ATA? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:17:03 -0000 Alexander Motin writes: > Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav writes: > > Most pseudo-raid kit has nifty features like checksum offloading, > > composite writes etc. which can improve performance considerably. You > > can't access those from GEOM. > Have you ever seen them documented? ISTR I got the info from sos@ at some point. I have several Promise cards lying around and was working onm RAID5 offloading, but I stopped when ZFS became usable. > Does the need to specifically handle dozens of incompatible > implementations with limited resources worth those (probably not > major) benefits? The details probably vary from controller to controller, but the capabilities are pretty much the same: perform the same write operation to several disks at once, split a write operation across several disks, compute and write parity. IIRC, composite writes are already supported but not used. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no