From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 9 02:02:31 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33D5616A47E for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2006 02:02:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from markir@paradise.net.nz) Received: from linda-3.paradise.net.nz (linda-3.paradise.net.nz [203.96.152.182]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC33D43D93 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2006 02:02:13 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from markir@paradise.net.nz) Received: from smtp-1.paradise.net.nz (tclsnelb1-src-1.paradise.net.nz [203.96.152.172]) by linda-3.paradise.net.nz (Paradise.net.nz) with ESMTP id <0J8F00JELXNM49@linda-3.paradise.net.nz> for freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG; Thu, 09 Nov 2006 15:02:10 +1300 (NZDT) Received: from [192.168.1.11] (218-101-28-187.dsl.clear.net.nz [218.101.28.187]) by smtp-1.paradise.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0EE712362A8; Thu, 09 Nov 2006 15:02:09 +1300 (NZDT) Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 15:01:58 +1300 From: Mark Kirkwood In-reply-to: To: Pete French Message-id: <45528C16.5030100@paradise.net.nz> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20061101) References: Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Dissapointing performance of ciss RAID 0+1 ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 02:02:31 -0000 Pete French wrote: > I recently overhauled my RAID array - I now have 4 drives arranged > as RAID 0+1, all being 15K 147gig Fujitsu's, and split across two > buses, which are actively terminated to give U160 speeds (and I have > verified this). The card is a 5304 (128M cache) in a PCI-X slot. > > This replaces a set of 6 7200 rpm drives as RAID 5 which were running at > 40meg speeds due to non LVD termination. I would expect to see a large speed > increase wouldn't I ? But it remains about the same - around 45 meg/sec > for reading a large file (3 gig or so) and half that for copying said > file. These are 'real world' tests in the sense that I us the drive for > building large ISo images and copying them around - I really dont care what > benchmarks say, it's the speed of these two operatiosn that I want to make > fats. > > I've tried all the possible stripe sizes (128k gives the best performance) > but still I only get the above speeds. Just one of the 15k drives on it's > own performs better than this! I would expect the RAID-0 to give me at > least some speedup, or in the worst case be the same, surely ? > > Booting up Windowws and running some tests gives me far better performance > however, so I am wondering if there is some driver issue here. Has anyone > else seen the same kind of results ? I am running the latest stable for > amd64 and the machine has twin opteron 242's with a gig of RAM each. surely > it can do better than this ? > You might be able to speed up the read by playing with the vfs.read_max sysctl (try 16 or 32). cheers Mark