On Jun 19, 2010, at 10:31 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Scott Long wrote:
>> On Jun 19, 2010, at 5:32 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 4:24 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 4:21 AM, oizs wrote:
> Since I tested it on d
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 4:50 AM, Scott Long wrote:
> I just set up a machine with the following GPT scheme:
>
> => 34 5853511613 mfid0 GPT (2.7T)
> 34 128 1 freebsd-boot (64K)
> 162 862 - free - (431K)
> 1024 2097152 2 fr
Yeah, there's no value in using the /dev/random devices for testing disk i/o.
Use /dev/zero instead. I've known of hardware RAID engines in the past that
can recognize certain repeating i/o benchmark patterns and optimize for them,
but I have no idea if LSI controllers do this, tho based on yo
/dev/random and /dev/urandom are relatively slow and are not suitable
as the source of data for testing modern hard drives' sequential
throughput.
On my 3GHz dual-core amd63 box both /dev/random and /dev/urandom max
out at ~80MB/s while consuming 100% CPU time on one of the processor
cores.
That w
I just set up a machine with the following GPT scheme:
=>34 5853511613 mfid0 GPT (2.7T)
34 128 1 freebsd-boot (64K)
162 862 - free - (431K)
1024 2097152 2 freebsd-ufs (1.0G)
2098176 4194304 3 freebsd-s
Does anyone know of a nice how to guide for achieving this?
- Original Message -
From: "Scott Long"
2. Partition alignment. If you're using classic MBR slices, everything gets misaligned by 63 sectors, making it impossible for
the controller to optimize both reads and writes. If the
I've tried almost everything now.
The battery is probably fine:
mfiutil show battery
mfi0: Battery State:
Manufacture Date: 7/25/2009
Serial Number: 3716
Manufacturer: SMP-PA1.9
Model: DLFR463
Chemistry: LION
Design Capacity: 1800 mAh
Design Voltage: 3700 mV
C
Could you tell me exactly how did you configure your raid? I mean
wb/read-ahead/blocksize/stripe etc.
Much appreciated.
-zsozso
On 2010.06.19. 14:26, Svein Skogen (Listmail Account) wrote:
On 19.06.2010 11:58, oizs wrote:
I tried almost everything raid 0 1 5 10 with all kind of stripes
32
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Scott Long wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2010, at 5:32 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 4:24 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 4:21 AM, oizs wrote:
Since I tested it on different kind of os's, and with at least 5 testing
ap
On Jun 19, 2010, at 5:32 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 4:24 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 4:21 AM, oizs wrote:
>>> Since I tested it on different kind of os's, and with at least 5 testing
>>> applications, I don't think that would be the case.
>>>
>>>
Two big things can affect RAID-5 performance:
1. Battery backup. If you don't have a working battery attached to the card,
it will turn off the write-back cache, no matter what you do. Check this. If
you're unsure, use the mfiutil tool that I added to FreeBSD a few months ago
and send me th
On 19.06.2010 11:58, oizs wrote:
> I tried almost everything raid 0 1 5 10 with all kind of stripes
> 32/64/128 and settings direct io/cached/read-ahead/wt/wb/disk-cache but
> nothing seems to work.
> I changed the card to another dell perc 5 which had an older firmware.
> Tried 4 kind of motherboa
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010, pluknet wrote:
...
MegaCli -LdSetProp Cached -LALL -a0
MegaCli -LdSetProp NORA -LALL -a0
MegaCli -LdSetProp WB -LALL -a0
MegaCli -LdSetProp -EnDskCache -LALL -a0
(Only if having a USV of course)
Dunno if there is a mfiutil equivalent though.
Hi.
That would be:
mfiutil cac
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 4:24 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 4:21 AM, oizs wrote:
>> Since I tested it on different kind of os's, and with at least 5 testing
>> applications, I don't think that would be the case.
>>
>> On 2010.06.19. 13:17, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 4:21 AM, oizs wrote:
> Since I tested it on different kind of os's, and with at least 5 testing
> applications, I don't think that would be the case.
>
> On 2010.06.19. 13:17, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 2:58 AM, oizs wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I tried almos
Since I tested it on different kind of os's, and with at least 5 testing
applications, I don't think that would be the case.
-zsozso
On 2010.06.19. 13:17, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 2:58 AM, oizs wrote:
I tried almost everything raid 0 1 5 10 with all kind of stripes 3
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 2:58 AM, oizs wrote:
> I tried almost everything raid 0 1 5 10 with all kind of stripes 32/64/128
> and settings direct io/cached/read-ahead/wt/wb/disk-cache but nothing seems
> to work.
> I changed the card to another dell perc 5 which had an older firmware. Tried
> 4 kind
I tried almost everything raid 0 1 5 10 with all kind of stripes
32/64/128 and settings direct io/cached/read-ahead/wt/wb/disk-cache but
nothing seems to work.
I changed the card to another dell perc 5 which had an older firmware.
Tried 4 kind of motherboards even tried changing the os to linux
On 18.06.2010 01:50, oizs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've bought a Dell Perc 5/i because I couldn't make the onboard marvell
> 88sx7042 work with 8.0/8.1 or current, but as lucky as I am, the best I
> can do with 4x1.5tb samsung in raid5 is 60MB/s writes and 90MB/s reads,
> with bbu/write-back/adaptive-read
On 19 June 2010 11:17, Michael Reifenberger wrote:
>
> Have you enabled the disk caches as well?
> Something like:
> MegaCli -LdSetProp Cached -LALL -a0
> MegaCli -LdSetProp NORA -LALL -a0
> MegaCli -LdSetProp WB -LALL -a0
> MegaCli -LdSetProp -EnDskCache -LALL -a0
> (Only if having a USV of cours
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010, oizs wrote:
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 02:27:05 +0200
From: oizs
To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Dell Perc 5/i Performance issues
Im using the Samsung F3 disks, which can do 140MB/s sequentially. I have
tried different raids raid0 will do just as bad as raid5. I
Im using the Samsung F3 disks, which can do 140MB/s sequentially. I have
tried different raids raid0 will do just as bad as raid5. I even tried
one disk which performed as expected 100MB/s+ reads and writes so I'm
not sure anymore what could be the problem. Maybe the controller hates
samsung di
On 18 June 2010 10:08, oizs wrote:
> I've seen people with the same configuration doing 160MB/s writes and
> 250MB/s+ reads with raid5 so I still think something isn't right. And using
> raid10 with 4 disks is a rather large waste of capacity.
>
> -zsozso
>
>
> On 2010.06.18. 1:55, Chuck Swiger w
On Jun 18, 2010, at 2:08 AM, oizs wrote:
> I've seen people with the same configuration doing 160MB/s writes and
> 250MB/s+ reads with raid5 so I still think something isn't right.
How is that being measured?
> And using raid10 with 4 disks is a rather large waste of capacity.
If you value perf
I've seen people with the same configuration doing 160MB/s writes and
250MB/s+ reads with raid5 so I still think something isn't right. And
using raid10 with 4 disks is a rather large waste of capacity.
-zsozso
On 2010.06.18. 1:55, Chuck Swiger wrote:
On Jun 17, 2010, at 4:50 PM, oizs wrote:
On Jun 17, 2010, at 4:50 PM, oizs wrote:
> I've bought a Dell Perc 5/i because I couldn't make the onboard marvell
> 88sx7042 work with 8.0/8.1 or current, but as lucky as I am, the best I can
> do with 4x1.5tb samsung in raid5 is 60MB/s writes and 90MB/s reads, with
> bbu/write-back/adaptive-re
Hi,
I've bought a Dell Perc 5/i because I couldn't make the onboard marvell
88sx7042 work with 8.0/8.1 or current, but as lucky as I am, the best I
can do with 4x1.5tb samsung in raid5 is 60MB/s writes and 90MB/s reads,
with bbu/write-back/adaptive-read-ahead.
I was expecting at least twice
27 matches
Mail list logo
