At 04:47 AM 20/04/2005, Claus Guttesen wrote:
> elin% dd if=/dev/zero of=/nfssrv/dd.tst bs=1024 count=1048576
> 1048576+0 records in
> 1048576+0 records out
> 1073741824 bytes transferred in 21.373114 secs (50237968 bytes/sec)
>
Follow-up, did the same dd on a Dell 2850 with a LSI Logic (amr), 6
sc
> You could use the atabeast to do two raid 5's, then use vinum to stripe those
> two.
I actually thought of that a while ago (unrelated to this). I read the
vinum-page in the handbook, assume this is still valid. I recall a
discussion regarding it's (re)naming to gvinum, but don't see any
mentio
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 08:56:03PM -0700, Jin Guojun [VFFS] wrote:
> Bruce Evans wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Bosko Milekic wrote:
> >
> >> My experience with 6.0-CURRENT has been that I am able to push at
> >> least about 400kpps INTO THE KERNEL from a gigE em card on its own
> >> 64-bit PCI
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 01:19:44PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Bosko Milekic wrote:
>
> > My experience with 6.0-CURRENT has been that I am able to push at
> > least about 400kpps INTO THE KERNEL from a gigE em card on its own
> > 64-bit PCI-X 133MHz bus (i.e., the bus is unc
Claus Guttesen wrote:
That's about what I expected. RAID 5 depends on fast xor, so a slow processor
in a hardware RAID5 box will slow you down a lot.
You should try taking the two RAID5's (6 disks each) created on your original
controller and striping those together (RAID 50) - this should get you
> That's about what I expected. RAID 5 depends on fast xor, so a slow processor
> in a hardware RAID5 box will slow you down a lot.
>
> You should try taking the two RAID5's (6 disks each) created on your original
> controller and striping those together (RAID 50) - this should get you some
> bet
Bruce Evans wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Bosko Milekic wrote:
My experience with 6.0-CURRENT has been that I am able to push at
least about 400kpps INTO THE KERNEL from a gigE em card on its own
64-bit PCI-X 133MHz bus (i.e., the bus is uncontested) and that's
A 64-bit bus doesn't seem to be ess
Hi,
Last week I got a request from my customer to check that why his
PHP code run much slower on FreeBSD than the Linux machine. After sometime
of checking I found the the problem is in the PHP serialize function which
use a lot of realloc call with small (128 bytes) incremenent. I
had sumbite
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 11:10:49PM +0200, Eivind Hestnes wrote:
> It sounds sensible, but I have also learned that throwing hardware on a
> problem is not always right.. Compared to shiny boxes from Cisco, HP
> etc. a 500 Mhz router is for heavy duty networks. I would try some more
> tweaking be
Yes,
Its also important to differentiate between routing and switching
needs. Not in the regular layer-3 and layer-2 concept, but in the
deployment environment you anticipate.
If you really need high throughput ports, nothing will beat a regular
switch (layer-2 or layer-3) because Cisco, 3COM
Claus Guttesen wrote:
elin% dd if=/dev/zero of=/nfssrv/dd.tst bs=1024 count=1048576
1048576+0 records in
1048576+0 records out
1073741824 bytes transferred in 21.373114 secs (50237968 bytes/sec)
Follow-up, did the same dd on a Dell 2850 with a LSI Logic (amr), 6
scsi-disks in a raid 5:
frodo~%>dd
> elin% dd if=/dev/zero of=/nfssrv/dd.tst bs=1024 count=1048576
> 1048576+0 records in
> 1048576+0 records out
> 1073741824 bytes transferred in 21.373114 secs (50237968 bytes/sec)
>
Follow-up, did the same dd on a Dell 2850 with a LSI Logic (amr), 6
scsi-disks in a raid 5:
frodo~%>dd if=/dev/ze
> >>I think you are disk bound.. You should not be disk bound at this point
> >>with a
> >>good RAID controller..
> > Good point, it's an atabeast from nexsan.
> Looks like they are indeed waiting on disk.. You could try making two 6 disk
> raid5 in your controller, then striping those with vinum
13 matches
Mail list logo
