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
Hi Lev,
On 06/19/10 16:26, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
Hello, Lawrence.
You wrote 19 июня 2010 г., 07:27:30:
Amount of feedback received thus far: nichts, nil, nada
I wanted to help you, but here is one problem: I dont have any
traffic-loaded 9-CURRENT machines. I have some not-so-critica
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 13 June 2010 12:12, Lawrence Stewart wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The time has come to solicit some external testing for my SIFTR tool. I'm
> hoping to commit it within a week or so unless problems are discovered.
>
> SIFTR is a kernel module that logs a range of statistics on active TCP
> connections
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
TB --- 2010-06-19 08:40:45 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2010-06-19 08:40:45 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for powerpc/powerpc
TB --- 2010-06-19 08:40:45 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2010-06-19 08:40:49 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2010-06-19 08:40:49 - /usr
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 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
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 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
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, 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 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
Hi Pluknet,
On 06/19/10 18:48, pluknet wrote:
[snip]
Hi.
I'm seeing this right after enabling siftr via sysctl and changing ppl.
Sorry, if that was already discussed, known or unrelated (since em is
in locking chain).
lock order reversal:
1st 0x80e51568 PFil hook read/write mutex (PF
Hi all,
I got my hands on a t60 with 4GB of RAM (BIOS displays it)
And I installed 8.1-RC1 on it:
FreeBSD 8.1-RC1 #0: Mon Jun 14 13:40:28 UTC 2010
r...@mason.cse.buffalo.edu:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
Timecounter "i8254" frequency 1193182 Hz quality 0
CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Andreas Tobler wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I got my hands on a t60 with 4GB of RAM (BIOS displays it)
>
> And I installed 8.1-RC1 on it:
>
> FreeBSD 8.1-RC1 #0: Mon Jun 14 13:40:28 UTC 2010
> r...@mason.cse.buffalo.edu:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
> Timecounter "
On 19.06.10 19:27, Andrey Fesenko wrote:
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Andreas Tobler wrote:
Hi all,
I got my hands on a t60 with 4GB of RAM (BIOS displays it)
And I installed 8.1-RC1 on it:
FreeBSD 8.1-RC1 #0: Mon Jun 14 13:40:28 UTC 2010
r...@mason.cse.buffalo.edu:/usr/obj/usr/src/s
Lawrence Stewart wrote:
> On 06/13/10 18:12, Lawrence Stewart wrote:
> > The time has come to solicit some external testing for my SIFTR tool.
> > I'm hoping to commit it within a week or so unless problems are discovered.
> > I'm interested in all feedback and reports of success/failure, along
Fabian Keil wrote:
> Lawrence Stewart wrote:
>
> > On 06/13/10 18:12, Lawrence Stewart wrote:
>
> > > The time has come to solicit some external testing for my SIFTR tool.
> > > I'm hoping to commit it within a week or so unless problems are
> > > discovered.
>
> > > I'm interested in all fe
This is likely related to shared memory for your video card. Often you can
turn down how much it gets from the BIOS.
www.johntate.org
This address can recieve heavy traffic. To give your messages priority
please put PERSONALX at the start of the subject line. This will allow
Hello,
The following patch unbreaks libgssapi and upgrades it to be consistent
with the previous heimdal-1.1 merge:
http://www.b1c1l1.com/media/patches/libgssapi-9.0-CURRENT.diff.bz2
http://www.b1c1l1.com/media/patches/libgssapi-8.1-STABLE.diff.bz2
Currently, libgssapi is out of date because it
on 19/06/2010 20:16 Andreas Tobler said the following:
> Hi all,
>
> I got my hands on a t60 with 4GB of RAM (BIOS displays it)
>
> And I installed 8.1-RC1 on it:
>
> FreeBSD 8.1-RC1 #0: Mon Jun 14 13:40:28 UTC 2010
> r...@mason.cse.buffalo.edu:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
> Timecounte
TB --- 2010-06-19 20:50:01 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2010-06-19 20:50:01 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for arm/arm
TB --- 2010-06-19 20:50:01 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2010-06-19 20:50:07 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2010-06-19 20:50:07 - /usr/bin/csu
TB --- 2010-06-19 23:21:07 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2010-06-19 23:21:07 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for powerpc/powerpc
TB --- 2010-06-19 23:21:07 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2010-06-19 23:21:11 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2010-06-19 23:21:11 - /usr
Hi Fabian,
Thank you for the the report. This is indeed an issue I've never seen
before and exactly the sort of thing I wanted to uncover.
On 06/20/10 03:58, Fabian Keil wrote:
Lawrence Stewart wrote:
On 06/13/10 18:12, Lawrence Stewart wrote:
The time has come to solicit some external
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 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.
>>>
>>>
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
Brandon Gooch wrote:
> I've been testing these patches since the first iteration
> (et.20100606), and I haven't discovered any related issues.
Thank you!
> I am unclear about the number of interrupts I should expect from the
> hpet0 device (compared to the 99 from the rtc at 100Hz), so here is
>
29 matches
Mail list logo
