From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 20 14:03:17 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8219916A4CE for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 14:03:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from rproxy.gmail.com (rproxy.gmail.com [64.233.170.197]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDBF843D5D for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 14:03:16 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kometen@gmail.com) Received: by rproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id a41so113274rng for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 07:03:16 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=B3dvWptSd1dwRulkLfLp+uVk2qlWQ1Va/4YitJrjctQAtCNi5A+b1kYxUhmz5KPIZREScYLjYlRpgxQW9qwBlUg7QoN+m8DE5rxUygRHJdKLvSWcGyxxLUGpuYedAGhK7HgVB1u0CFlruZuHQlnZNlDkNd/NDnoJs7WJJ2rqvA0= Received: by 10.38.10.66 with SMTP id 66mr1059216rnj; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 07:03:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.38.149.53 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 07:03:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 16:03:16 +0200 From: Claus Guttesen To: Eric Anderson In-Reply-To: <426642D4.8000202@centtech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <4264F8A8.3080405@centtech.com> <426507DC.50409@centtech.com> <42650EB2.4040409@centtech.com> <426642D4.8000202@centtech.com> cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: some simple nfs-benchmarks on 5.4 RC2 X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Claus Guttesen List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 14:03:17 -0000 > That's about what I expected. RAID 5 depends on fast xor, so a slow proc= essor > in a hardware RAID5 box will slow you down a lot. >=20 > You should try taking the two RAID5's (6 disks each) created on your orig= inal > controller and striping those together (RAID 50) - this should get you so= me > better performance, probably not as close as the amr device, but I would = guess > somewhere in the 80-90mb/s range. This can't be done in hardware, since atabeast only supports raid 0, 1, 4 and 5. But I will definitively have this in my mind this when we get a new storage-system (a different one). Thank you for your guidance. regards Claus