From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Nov  9 10:17:22 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 E139F16A407
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Thu,  9 Nov 2006 10:17:22 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from freebsd-stable@m.gmane.org)
Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 449A643D8C
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Thu,  9 Nov 2006 10:17:21 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from freebsd-stable@m.gmane.org)
Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Gi6y8-0001qV-Gu
	for freebsd-stable@freebsd.org; Thu, 09 Nov 2006 11:17:12 +0100
Received: from lara.cc.fer.hr ([161.53.72.113])
	by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
	id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Thu, 09 Nov 2006 11:17:12 +0100
Received: from ivoras by lara.cc.fer.hr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
	id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Thu, 09 Nov 2006 11:17:12 +0100
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@fer.hr>
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 11:17:02 +0100
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <eiuv6v$vgl$1@sea.gmane.org>
References: <E1GhyUM-000Oct-6G@dilbert.firstcallgroup.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: lara.cc.fer.hr
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060625)
In-Reply-To: <E1GhyUM-000Oct-6G@dilbert.firstcallgroup.co.uk>
Sender: news <news@sea.gmane.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 <freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 10:17:23 -0000

Pete French wrote:

> 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 ?

The checklist for tuning usually goes like this:

- Is the controller cache enabled?
- Do you have the battery for it and is write cache enabled? (You won't 
make full use of the cache without the battery)
- How does your performance compare when using dd on the raw devices (in 
order: da0, da0s1, da0s1a...) vs when using it on the file system? (Poor 
performance might indicate FS vs stripe alignment issues)
- What does vmstat -i say while running your benchmarks? Any interrupt 
storms?
- If all of this fails, post dmesg, maybe someone will notice something 
unusual.