Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:46:00 +1000 From: Danny Carroll <danny@dannysplace.net> To: Matt Simerson <matt@corp.spry.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Areca vs. ZFS performance testing. Message-ID: <49220238.2040507@dannysplace.net> In-Reply-To: <BAD53F1B-F3E7-4683-A916-4D9EF6541FCB@corp.spry.com> References: <490A782F.9060406@dannysplace.net> <20081031033208.GA21220@icarus.home.lan> <490A849C.7030009@dannysplace.net> <20081031043412.GA22289@icarus.home.lan> <490A8FAD.8060009@dannysplace.net> <491BBF38.9010908@dannysplace.net> <491C5AA7.1030004@samsco.org> <491C9535.3030504@dannysplace.net> <CEDCDD3E-B908-44BF-9D00-7B73B3C15878@anduin.net> <4920E1DD.7000101@dannysplace.net> <F55CD13C-8117-4D34-9C35-618D28F9F2DE@spry.com> <492158D2.5020506@dannysplace.net> <BAD53F1B-F3E7-4683-A916-4D9EF6541FCB@corp.spry.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Matt Simerson wrote: > Disk caching is a completely different animal, and one which I didn't > mention. I'm spoke only about the write cache on the controller. Mine > all arrived off by default, which is a VERY reasonable default > configuration. Page 97 of the manual says about it: Ahhh, no I was talking about the disk cache setting. That is the one that is set to on by default (at least for me). I find it strange that this is the case. IMHO it makes the idea of a Battery backed cache redundant. > Perhaps it's model specific, or your vendor configured it that way. Or > you got a return that someone else monkeyed with. I'm not going to speak > for Areca but it seems quite odd that Areca would ship them with the > cache enabled. I've used many hundreds of RAID controllers over the > years and without exception, every single one with a write cache had it > disabled by default. I guess I had a return model. It's not really a big deal. -D
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?49220238.2040507>