It depends on the bandwidth of the bus that it is on and the controller itself.
I like to use pci-x with aoc-sat2-mv8 cards or pci-e cards....that way you get a lot more bandwidth.. On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 3:32 AM, Dan Naumov <dan.nau...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Dan Naumov <dan.nau...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 7:33 AM, Bob Friesenhahn > > <bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote: > >> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010, Dan Naumov wrote: > >>> > >>> I've checked with the manufacturer and it seems that the Sil3124 in > >>> this NAS is indeed a PCI card. More info on the card in question is > >>> available at > >>> http://green-pcs.co.uk/2009/01/28/tranquil-bbs2-those-pci-cards/ > >>> I have the card described later on the page, the one with 4 SATA ports > >>> and no eSATA. Alright, so it being PCI is probably a bottleneck in > >>> some ways, but that still doesn't explain the performance THAT bad, > >>> considering that same hardware, same disks, same disk controller push > >>> over 65mb/s in both reads and writes in Win2008. And agian, I am > >>> pretty sure that I've had "close to expected" results when I was > >> > >> The slow PCI bus and this card look like the bottleneck to me. Remember > that > >> your Win2008 tests were with just one disk, your zfs performance with > just > >> one disk was similar to Win2008, and your zfs performance with a mirror > was > >> just under 1/2 that. > >> > >> I don't think that your performance results are necessarily out of line > for > >> the hardware you are using. > >> > >> On an old Sun SPARC workstation with retrofitted 15K RPM drives on > Ultra-160 > >> SCSI channel, I see a zfs mirror write performance of 67,317KB/second > and a > >> read performance of 124,347KB/second. The drives themselves are capable > of > >> 100MB/second range performance. Similar to yourself, I see 1/2 the write > >> performance due to bandwidth limitations. > >> > >> Bob > > > > There is lots of very sweet irony in my particular situiation. > > Initially I was planning to use a single X25-M 80gb SSD in the > > motherboard sata port for the actual OS installation as well as to > > dedicate 50gb of it to a become a designaed L2ARC vdev for my ZFS > > mirrors. The SSD attached to the motherboard port would be recognized > > only as a SATA150 device for some reason, but I was still seeing > > 150mb/s throughput and sub 0.1 ms latencies on that disk simply > > because of how crazy good the X25-M's are. However I ended up having > > very bad issues with the Icydock 2,5" to 3,5" converter jacket I was > > using to keep/fit the SSD in the system and it would randomly drop > > write IO on heavy load due to bad connectors. Having finally figured > > out the cause of my OS installations to the SSD going belly up during > > applying updates, I decided to move the SSD to my desktop and use it > > there instead, additionally thinking that my perhaps my idea of the > > SSD was crazy overkill for what I need the system to do. Ironically > > now that I am seeing how horrible the performance is when I am > > operating on the mirror through this PCI card, I realize that > > actually, my idea was pretty bloody brilliant, I just didn't really > > know why at the time. > > > > An L2ARC device on the motherboard port would really help me with > > random read IO, but to work around the utterly poor write performance, > > I would also need a dedicaled SLOG ZIL device. The catch is that while > > L2ARC devices and be removed from the pool at will (should the device > > up and die all of a sudden), the dedicated ZILs cannot and currently a > > "missing" ZIL device will render the pool it's included in be unable > > to import and become inaccessible. There is some work happening in > > Solaris to implement removing SLOGs from a pool, but that work hasn't > > yet found it's way in FreeBSD yet. > > > > > > - Sincerely, > > Dan Naumov > > OK final question: if/when I go about adding more disks to the system > and want redundancy, am I right in thinking that: ZFS pool of > disk1+disk2 mirror + disk3+disk4 mirror (a la RAID10) would completely > murder my write and read performance even way below the current 28mb/s > / 50mb/s I am seeing with 2 disks on that PCI controller and that in > order to have the least negative impact, I should simply have 2 > independent mirrors in 2 independent pools (with the 5th disk slot in > the NAS given to a non-redundant single disk running off the one > available SATA port on the motherboard)? > > - Sincerely, > Dan Naumov > _______________________________________________ > freebsd...@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
