Hi!
I tested the performance w and w/o the patch. There is no difference.
ciss0 at pci3 dev 3 function 0 Compaq Smart Array 64xx rev 0x01: apic 10 int
3
ciss0: 2 LDs, HW rev 1, FW 2.84/2.84, 64bit fifo
scsibus0 at ciss0: 2 targets
sd0 at scsibus0 targ 0 lun 0: HP, LOGICAL VOLUME, 2.84 SCSI2
Hi Misc!
We have some older HP Dl360, Dl380 G4 machines with Smart Array 6i
controllores w/o battery backed cache.
The disk performance in this case is really poor, for examle the
disklabel operation on a 72GB disk lasted for about 5 mins.
I found a commit in a NetBSD ciss driver (which is a
I don't think that commit will fix the problem.
HP shouldn't sell machines without the battery, but they do.
From memory the firmware on the raid controller has no way
of turning on caching without the battery being present.
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:30:34AM +0200, csszep wrote:
Hi Misc!
We
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 08:31:06PM +1000, Jonathan Gray wrote:
From memory the firmware on the raid controller has no way
of turning on caching without the battery being present.
I run some ciss, like the HP P212 and P410 and I can override
the cache setting, that is I can turn it on even
Ok, but i installed Linux (Debian 6) and there is no performance degradation.
I will install NetBSD too, and i will do a test.
The commit does not turn on the cache, it enable tagged queing if i
understand it well.
thx
csszep
2012/5/29 Jonathan Gray j...@jsg.id.au:
I don't think that commit
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:25:51PM +0100, Rodolfo Gouveia wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 08:31:06PM +1000, Jonathan Gray wrote:
From memory the firmware on the raid controller has no way
of turning on caching without the battery being present.
I run some ciss, like the HP P212 and P410 and
Hi!
So i tested the ciss performance with Openbsd 5.1 and Netbsd 5.1.2 and
the numbers are the same. :(
approx 13Mbyte/s write with dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/rsd1c bs=1m count=500
But why Linux is four times faster (approx 40Mbyte/s)?
thx csszep
2012/5/29 csszep css...@gmail.com:
Ok, but i
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 03:48:02PM +0200, csszep wrote:
Hi!
So i tested the ciss performance with Openbsd 5.1 and Netbsd 5.1.2 and
the numbers are the same. :(
approx 13Mbyte/s write with dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/rsd1c bs=1m count=500
But why Linux is four times faster (approx
Hello,
On 05/29/12 17:28, Kenneth R Westerback wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 03:48:02PM +0200, csszep wrote:
Hi!
So i tested the ciss performance with Openbsd 5.1 and Netbsd 5.1.2 and
the numbers are the same. :(
approx 13Mbyte/s write with dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/rsd1c bs=1m count=500
But
9 matches
Mail list logo