From owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 9 15:58:06 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76C6D106568B; Fri, 9 Jan 2009 15:58:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kgysmits@gmail.com) Received: from mail-bw0-f20.google.com (mail-bw0-f20.google.com [209.85.218.20]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 821C48FC21; Fri, 9 Jan 2009 15:58:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kgysmits@gmail.com) Received: by bwz13 with SMTP id 13so2729134bwz.19 for ; Fri, 09 Jan 2009 07:58:04 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=pJ00ba9WhUzDMbO3Ud6rEDRlNJ52UsSugL8T/kaDX1M=; b=Icz4MNWP8UxsHDcmBxHqnESoYW+mxDTawHTdA3w71z9yKiwBgTTsHsbiwV7KrUyEFc 6sql94bz1LgdQg7Bmg4gXfdxByZY3BzgtwUNkiAWKyJFmnBZA5yIsHgFwKYmqVkcQKq/ YlmgwQ70JaR9l4f3o/3RmgW/lnXXRCgdJJDGk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:references; b=xKls5E/X4znqcWLq9yuAwW+YzCsQQ6HLwwbKCxHTtHfE7acM5scsAEOsfgEFXB8AsR Jhf0fh5/0Nf+j7u7jCPJKLM+Ue19/6pA5yGZ0RwTiyO+b/fBCoVfkz5uWdmoRqOdgoZ9 3tuxfkBwCfOctT/ohE1ZPyex5zJknV6NQiNl0= Received: by 10.223.113.199 with SMTP id b7mr18664454faq.83.1231516683926; Fri, 09 Jan 2009 07:58:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.223.108.136 with HTTP; Fri, 9 Jan 2009 07:58:03 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 16:58:03 +0100 From: "Koen Smits" To: fbsd@dannysplace.net In-Reply-To: <496712A2.4020800@dannysplace.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20081031033208.GA21220@icarus.home.lan> <4920E1DD.7000101@dannysplace.net> <20081117070818.GA22231@icarus.home.lan> <496549D9.7010003@dannysplace.net> <4966B6B1.8020502@dannysplace.net> <496712A2.4020800@dannysplace.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Jeremy Chadwick , freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Areca vs. ZFS performance testing. X-BeenThere: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of FreeBSD hardware List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 15:58:07 -0000 Please let us know what Areca says about the caching. If you ask me, these results definitely are cached. On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 10:02, Danny Carroll wrote: > Koen Smits wrote: > > Those numbers are pretty good, right? Who needs onboard XOR anyway :) > > > > Those numbers are great, but I would love to know that writes to the > disks are also protected by the battery backup. If not then I'll be > forced to use either hardware raid5/6 or perhaps some other > configuration. Maybe 6 stripe sets in a raidz array? > > At the end of the day however I really don't care about the performance, > even the slowest of the tests I did would be fast enough to saturate a > gigabit ethernet port, which is way fast enough for me. But its an > interesting set of tests... > > -D >