On Fri, 5 May 2000, Michael Robinton wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Not entirely, there is a fair bit more CPU overhead running an
> > > > IDE bus than a proper SCSI one.
> > >
> > > A "fair" bit on a 500mhz+ processor is really negligible.
> >
> >
> > Ehem, a fair bit on a 500Mhz CPU is
"Christopher E. Brown" wrote:
> On Thu, 4 May 2000, Michael Robinton wrote:
> > >
> > > Not entirely, there is a fair bit more CPU overhead running an
> > > IDE bus than a proper SCSI one.
> >
> > A "fair" bit on a 500mhz+ processor is really negligible.
>
> Ehem, a fair bit on a 50
> > >
> > > Not entirely, there is a fair bit more CPU overhead running an
> > > IDE bus than a proper SCSI one.
> >
> > A "fair" bit on a 500mhz+ processor is really negligible.
>
>
> Ehem, a fair bit on a 500Mhz CPU is ~ 30%. I have watched a
> *single* UDMA66 drive (with read ahead
On Thu, 4 May 2000, Michael Robinton wrote:
> >
> > Not entirely, there is a fair bit more CPU overhead running an
> > IDE bus than a proper SCSI one.
>
> A "fair" bit on a 500mhz+ processor is really negligible.
Ehem, a fair bit on a 500Mhz CPU is ~ 30%. I have watched a
*single*
> From: Gregory Leblanc [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> ..., that would suck up a lot more host CPU processing power than
> the 3 SCSI channels that you'd need to get 12 drives and avoid bus
>saturation.
not to mention the obvious bus slot loading problem ;-)
rc
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Robinton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 10:31 PM
> To: Christopher E. Brown
> Cc: Chris Mauritz; bug1; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: performance limitations of linux raid
>
> On Thu, 4 May 2000, Ch
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 5:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: performance limitations of linux raid
I think the original answer was more to the point of Performance Limitation.
The mechanical delays inherent in the disk rotation are much slo
On Thu, 4 May 2000, Christopher E. Brown wrote:
> On Wed, 3 May 2000, Michael Robinton wrote:
>
> > The primary limitation is probably the rotational speed of the disks and
> > how fast you can rip data off the drives. For instance, the big IBM
> > drives (20 - 40 gigs) have a limitation of ab
I think the original answer was more to the point of Performance Limitation.
The mechanical delays inherent in the disk rotation are much slower than
the electronic or optical speeds in the connection between disk and
computer.
If you had a huge bank of semiconductor memory, or a huge cache or b
On Wed, 3 May 2000, Michael Robinton wrote:
> The primary limitation is probably the rotational speed of the disks and
> how fast you can rip data off the drives. For instance, the big IBM
> drives (20 - 40 gigs) have a limitation of about 27mbs for both the 7200
> and 10k rpm models. The Driv
> -Original Message-
> From: Carruth, Rusty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 8:36 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: performance limitations of linux raid
>
> > The primary limitation is probably the rotational speed of
> the
On Thu, May 04, 2000 at 08:35:52AM -0700, Carruth, Rusty wrote:
>
> > The primary limitation is probably the rotational speed of the disks and
> > how fast you can rip data off the drives. For instance, ...
>
> Well, yeah, and so whatever happened to optical scsi? I heard that you
> could ge
> The primary limitation is probably the rotational speed of the disks and
> how fast you can rip data off the drives. For instance, ...
Well, yeah, and so whatever happened to optical scsi? I heard that you
could get 1 gbit/sec (or maybe gByte?) xfer, and you could go 1000 meters -
or is thi
The primary limitation is probably the rotational speed of the disks and
how fast you can rip data off the drives. For instance, the big IBM
drives (20 - 40 gigs) have a limitation of about 27mbs for both the 7200
and 10k rpm models. The Drives to come will have to make trade-offs
between dens
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed May 3 20:38:05 2000
>
> Umm, I can get 13,000K/sec to/from ext2 from a *single*
> UltraWide Cheeta (best case, *long* reads, no seeks). 100Mbit is only
> 12,500K/sec.
>
>
> A 4 drive UltraWide Cheeta array will top out an UltraWide bus
> at 40MByte/sec
On Sun, 23 Apr 2000, Chris Mauritz wrote:
> > I wonder what the fastest speed any linux software raid has gotten, it
> > would be great if the limitation was a hardware limitation i.e. cpu,
> > (scsi/ide) interface speed, number of (scsi/ide) interfaces, drive
> > speed. It would be interesting t
If you are looking for one of the higest performance systems we have ever seen, visit www.raidzone.com. These are real systems.
John
___
Are you a Techie? Get Your Free Tech Email Address Now!
Many to choose from! Visit http://www.TechEmail.co
More notes on the 8 IDE drive raid5 system I built, and the 3ware controller.
Edwin Hakkennes wrote:
May I ask how these ide-ports and the attatched disks
show up under Redhat 6.2? Are they just standard ATA33 or ATA66 controllers
which can be used in software raid? Or is only the sum of the atta
> 2 Masters from the ASUS P3C2000 CDU Board, 2 Masters on a CMD648
> based PCI controller and 4 Masters on a 3Wave 4 port RAID
> Controller. I don't use the 3Wave as a RAID controller though, just
> as a very good 4 channel Ultra66 board. They also make an 8 channel
> board, and that's what I'm go
The coolest guy you know wrote:
> Clay Claiborne wrote:
> >
> > For what its worth, we recently built an 8 ide drive 280GB raid5 system.
> > Benchmarking with HDBENCH we got 35.7MB/sec read and 29.87MB/sec write. With
> > DBENCH and 1 client we got 44.5 MB/sec with 3 clients it dropped down to
> In the last 24 hours ive been getting them when e2fsck runs after
> rebooting. Usual cause of rebooting is irq causeing lockup, or endlessly
> trying looping trying to get an irq.
>
> Im convinced its my hpt366 controller, ive mentioned my problem in a few
> channels, no luck yet.
>
> I used
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> What stripe size, CPU and memory is used here?
System is a dual-cpu PII 450Mhz with 256MB RAM.
Disks are configured with chunk-size of 32kb (ext2 block-size is 4kb).
> Is this a dual CPU system perhaps? Something
remo strotkamp wrote:
>
> bug1 wrote:
> >
> > Clay Claiborne wrote:
> > >
> > > For what its worth, we recently built an 8 ide drive 280GB raid5 system.
> > > Benchmarking with HDBENCH we got 35.7MB/sec read and 29.87MB/sec write. With
> > > DBENCH and 1 client we got 44.5 MB/sec with 3 clients
On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 09:13:20PM -0400, Scott M. Ransom wrote:
>
> Then I moved back to kernel 2.2.15-pre18 with the RAID and IDE patches
> and here are my results:
>
> RAID0 on Promise Card 2.2.15-pre18 (1200MB test)
> --
> ---Seq
On Tue, Apr 25, 2000 at 11:38:59PM +0100, Paul Jakma wrote:
> > Clue: this is the way every RAID controller I know of works these days.
> what??? Do you know what are you are talking about?
Yep, I think so.
I think I misunderstood you ("getting called by BIOS").
> a REAL raid contr
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Gregory Leblanc wrote:
Then you've never used a RAID card. I've got a number of RAID
cards here, 2 from compaq, 1 from DPT, and another from HP
(really AMI), and all of them implement RAID functions like
striping, double writes (mirroring), and parity calculations fo
On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, Daniel Roesen wrote:
Clue: this is the way every RAID controller I know of works these days.
what??? Do you know what are you are talking about? hey,
i've got some $1000 raid cards for you. (my markup is $980).
a REAL raid controller is a *complete computer*
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Roesen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 3:07 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: performance limitations of linux raid
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2000 at 10:28:46PM +0100, Paul Jakma wrote:
> &
On Tue, Apr 25, 2000 at 10:28:46PM +0100, Paul Jakma wrote:
> Clue: the Promise IDE RAID controller is NOT a hardware RAID
> controller.
>
> Promise IDE RAID == Software RAID where the software is written by
> Promise and sitting on the ROM on the Promise card getting called by
> the BIOS.
Clue:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Frank Joerdens wrote:
I've been toying with the idea of getting one of those for a while, but
there doesn't seem to be a linux driver for the FastTrack66 (the RAID
card), only for the Ultra66 (the not-hacked IDE controller), and that
driver has only 'Experimental' sta
bug1 wrote:
>
> Clay Claiborne wrote:
> >
> > For what its worth, we recently built an 8 ide drive 280GB raid5 system.
> > Benchmarking with HDBENCH we got 35.7MB/sec read and 29.87MB/sec write. With
> > DBENCH and 1 client we got 44.5 MB/sec with 3 clients it dropped down to about
> > 43MB/sec.
bug1 wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't believe the specs either, because they are for the "ideal" case.
> > However, I think that either your benchmark is flawed, or you've got a
> > crappy controller. I have a (I think) 5400 RPM 4.5GB IBM SCA SCSI drive in
> > a machine at home, and I can easily read at
Seth Vidal wrote:
>
> > A 7200RPM IDE drive is faster than a 5400RPM SCSI drive and a 1RPM
> > SCSI drive is faster than a 7200RPM drive.
> >
> > If you have two 7200RPM drives, one scsi and one ide, each on there own
> > channel, then they should be about the same speed.
> >
>
> Not entirel
> A 7200RPM IDE drive is faster than a 5400RPM SCSI drive and a 1RPM
> SCSI drive is faster than a 7200RPM drive.
>
> If you have two 7200RPM drives, one scsi and one ide, each on there own
> channel, then they should be about the same speed.
>
Not entirely true - the DMA capabilities of ID
Clay Claiborne wrote:
>
> For what its worth, we recently built an 8 ide drive 280GB raid5 system.
> Benchmarking with HDBENCH we got 35.7MB/sec read and 29.87MB/sec write. With
> DBENCH and 1 client we got 44.5 MB/sec with 3 clients it dropped down to about
> 43MB/sec.
> The system is a 600Mhz
>
> I don't believe the specs either, because they are for the "ideal" case.
> However, I think that either your benchmark is flawed, or you've got a
> crappy controller. I have a (I think) 5400 RPM 4.5GB IBM SCA SCSI drive in
> a machine at home, and I can easily read at 7MB/sec from it under S
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Clay Claiborne wrote:
> For what its worth, we recently built an 8 ide drive 280GB raid5 system.
> Benchmarking with HDBENCH we got 35.7MB/sec read and 29.87MB/sec write. With
> DBENCH and 1 client we got 44.5 MB/sec with 3 clients it dropped down to about
> 43MB/sec.
> Th
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott M. Ransom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2000 6:13 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Gregory Leblanc; bug1
> Subject: RE: performance limitations of linux raid
>
>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>> There's "specs" and then there's real life. I have never
>> seen a hard drive
>> that could do this. I've got brand new IBM 7200rpm ATA66
>> drives and I can't
>> seem to get them to do much better than 6-7mb/sec
For what its worth, we recently built an 8 ide drive 280GB raid5 system.
Benchmarking with HDBENCH we got 35.7MB/sec read and 29.87MB/sec write. With
DBENCH and 1 client we got 44.5 MB/sec with 3 clients it dropped down to about
43MB/sec.
The system is a 600Mhz P-3 on a ASUS P3C2000 with 256MB of
> > There's "specs" and then there's real life. I have never seen a hard drive
> > that could do this. I've got brand new IBM 7200rpm ATA66 drives and I can't
> > seem to get them to do much better than 6-7mb/sec with either Win98,
> > Win2000, or Linux. That's with Abit BH6, an Asus P3C2000, a
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Mauritz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2000 2:30 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: performance limitations of linux raid
>
>
> There's "specs" and then there&#x
> There's "specs" and then there's real life. I have never seen a hard drive
> that could do this. I've got brand new IBM 7200rpm ATA66 drives and I can't
> seem to get them to do much better than 6-7mb/sec with either Win98,
> Win2000, or Linux. That's with Abit BH6, an Asus P3C2000, and Super
AIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2000 5:10 PM
Subject: Re: performance limitations of linux raid
> > > > > I find those numbers rather hard to believe. I've not yet heard
of a
> > > > > disk (IDE or SCSI) that can reliably dump 22mb/sec which is what
your
&
> > > > I find those numbers rather hard to believe. I've not yet heard of a
> > > > disk (IDE or SCSI) that can reliably dump 22mb/sec which is what your
> > > > 2 drive setup implies. Something isn't right.
Sure it is. go to the ibm site and look at the specs on all the new
high capacity dri
> > > I find those numbers rather hard to believe. I've not yet heard of a
> > > disk (IDE or SCSI) that can reliably dump 22mb/sec which is what your
> > > 2 drive setup implies. Something isn't right.
> >
> > Check http://www.tomshardware.com , they review the Promise IDE RAID
> > card
> > (t
On Sun, 23 Apr 2000, bug1 wrote:
> Chris Mauritz wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, im just wondering has anyone really explored the performance
> > > limitations of linux raid ?
> >
>
> Ive just managed to setup a 4 way ide raid0 that works.
>
> The only wa
Edward Schernau wrote:
>
> Chris Mauritz wrote:
>
> > > Ive done some superficial performance tests using dd, 55MB/s write
> > > 12MB/s read, interestingly i did get 42MB/s write using just a 2 way ide
> > > raid0, and got 55MB/s write with one drive per channel on four channels
> > > (i had no
Chris Mauritz wrote:
> > Ive done some superficial performance tests using dd, 55MB/s write
> > 12MB/s read, interestingly i did get 42MB/s write using just a 2 way ide
> > raid0, and got 55MB/s write with one drive per channel on four channels
> > (i had no problem writing, just reading) so surp
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Apr 23 01:06:24 2000
>
> Chris Mauritz wrote:
> >
> > > From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Apr 22 21:37:37 2000
> > >
> > > Hi, im just wondering has anyone really explored the performance
> > > limitations of linux rai
Chris Mauritz wrote:
>
> > From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Apr 22 21:37:37 2000
> >
> > Hi, im just wondering has anyone really explored the performance
> > limitations of linux raid ?
> >
> > Recognising ones limitations is the first step to overcommin
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Apr 22 21:37:37 2000
>
> Hi, im just wondering has anyone really explored the performance
> limitations of linux raid ?
>
> Recognising ones limitations is the first step to overcomming them.
>
> Ive found that relative performance increa
Hi, im just wondering has anyone really explored the performance
limitations of linux raid ?
Recognising ones limitations is the first step to overcomming them.
Ive found that relative performance increases are better with less
drives.
Ive been using raid for a year or so, ive never managed to
53 matches
Mail list logo
