At Sun, 08 May 2005 08:35:38 -0600,
Scott Long wrote:
> > According to the documentation this is not the case and the XOR
> > calcs are done in hardware on the onboard HPT 601.
> Maybe I'm confused and we are talking about different cards.
RocketRAID 1820 is a plain SATA card with software RAID.
1
Steven Hartland wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Scott Long" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
According to the documentation this is not the case and the XOR
calcs are done in hardware on the onboard HPT 601.
Maybe I'm confused and we are talking about different cards.
Quite possibly all other highp
- Original Message -
From: "Willem Jan Withagen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
That is well phrased English for what I was trying to say. I'm glad to see
that it worked for you. And I'm certainly impressed by the numbers...
This is on a 4 disk RAID5 with one hot spare???
Unfortunately not, we need
Steven Hartland wrote:
Still I would argue that if you do not use a write size larger than
what you have as real memory, that buffering in real memory is going
to play a role
I think you miss read all the details here Willem.
Sorry about that, if that is the case.
Original values:
Write: 150
- Original Message -
From: "Scott Long" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
According to the documentation this is not the case and the XOR
calcs are done in hardware on the onboard HPT 601.
Maybe I'm confused and we are talking about different cards.
Quite possibly all other highpoint cards that Im aware
- Original Message -
From: "willem jan withagen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
If that where the case it would have been it wouldn't have been
46Mb/s it would have been 543Mb/s, just tested it for you :P
I've just finished putting together a new server box spec:
Dual AMD 244, 2GB ram, 5 * Seagate SA
Steven Hartland wrote:
Original Message - From: "Scott Long" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Steven Hartland wrote:
If that where the case it would have been it wouldn't have been
46Mb/s it would have been 543Mb/s, just tested it for you :P
The RR1280 cards are really just software RAID cards. All
Original Message -
From: "Scott Long" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Steven Hartland wrote:
If that where the case it would have been it wouldn't have been
46Mb/s it would have been 543Mb/s, just tested it for you :P
The RR1280 cards are really just software RAID cards. All of the parity
calculat
Steven Hartland wrote:
If that where the case it would have been it wouldn't have been
46Mb/s it would have been 543Mb/s, just tested it for you :P
The RR1280 cards are really just software RAID cards. All of the parity
calculations are done by the CPU. I couldn't find much evidence that
the driv
Steven Hartland wrote:
If that where the case it would have been it wouldn't have been
46Mb/s it would have been 543Mb/s, just tested it for you :P
I've just finished putting together a new server box spec:
Dual AMD 244, 2GB ram, 5 * Seagate SATA 400GB on a
Highpoint 1820a RAID 5 array.
5.4-STABLE
If that where the case it would have been it wouldn't have been
46Mb/s it would have been 543Mb/s, just tested it for you :P
Steve / K
- Original Message -
From: "Willem Jan Withagen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Steven Hartland wrote:
I've just finished putting together a new server box spec:
Steven Hartland wrote:
I've just finished putting together a new server box spec:
Dual AMD 244, 2GB ram, 5 * Seagate SATA 400GB on a
Highpoint 1820a RAID 5 array.
5.4-STABLE Highpoint 1820a RAID 5 ( 5 disk )
.
65536 bytes transferred in 13.348032 secs (49097875 bytes/sec)
You're only transferi
Eric Anderson wrote:
I'm using fiber channel SATA, and I get 2x write as I do read, which
doesn't make sense to me. What kind of write speeds do you get? My
tiny brain tells me that reads should be faster than writes with a RAID5.
I'm seeing similar sequential performance on RELENG_5_3 and REL
Steven Hartland wrote:
> 5.4-STABLE Highpoint 1820a RAID 5 ( 5 disk )
> dd if=/dev/da0 of=/dev/null bs=64k count=1
> 1+0 records in
> 1+0 records out
> 65536 bytes transferred in 13.348032 secs (49097875 bytes/sec)
Have you tried the driver supplied by Highpoint as a pre-compiled
There is no precompiled version for 5.3 but looking at the openbuild version
its the same driver as the built in.
80MB/s is still terrible should be looking closer to 200MB/s.
Steven Hartland wrote:
5.4-STABLE Highpoint 1820a RAID 5 ( 5 disk )
dd if=/dev/da0 of=/dev/null bs=64k count=1
1+0
Peter Losher wrote:
Steven Hartland wrote:
5.4-STABLE Highpoint 1820a RAID 5 ( 5 disk )
dd if=/dev/da0 of=/dev/null bs=64k count=1
1+0 records in
1+0 records out
65536 bytes transferred in 13.348032 secs (49097875 bytes/sec)
Have you tried the driver supplied by Highpoint as a pre
Sorry wanted to send to performance not current :)
Steve
- Original Message -
I've just finished putting together a new server box spec:
Dual AMD 244, 2GB ram, 5 * Seagate SATA 400GB on a
Highpoint 1820a RAID 5 array.
The machine is currently running 5.4-STABLE ( from the
weekend ) Afte
I've just finished putting together a new server box spec:
Dual AMD 244, 2GB ram, 5 * Seagate SATA 400GB on a
Highpoint 1820a RAID 5 array.
The machine is currently running 5.4-STABLE ( from the
weekend ) After install I did some basic tests and the
disk is return very poor performance low in fact
18 matches
Mail list logo
