On 3/5/06, Beastie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nikolas Britton wrote: > On 3/3/06, Alex Zbyslaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nikolas Britton wrote: > > Please can you be careful when you attribute your comments. You've sent this > email "to" me, and left only my name in the attributions as if I were > someone suggesting either dd or diskinfo as accurate benchmarks, when in > fact my contribution was to suggest unixbench and sandra-lite. Maybe you > hate those too, in which case you can quote what I said in-context and > rubbish that at your pleasure. > Yes I see your point, it does look like I'm replying to something you wrote. > This was a oversight and I am sorry. > OK. > Remember that 105MB/s number I quoted above?, that's just the sustained read > transfer rate for a big ass file, I don't need to work with big ass files. I > need to work with 15MB files (+/- 5MB). After buying the right disks, > controller, mainboard etc. and lots of tuning with the help of iozone I get: > 200 - 350MB/s overall (read, write, etc.) for files less then or equal to > 64MB*. So anyways, that's what iozone can do for you. google it and > you'll find out more stuff about it. > Thanks for the info. I think I can only dream about numbers like like yours. > Iozone looks to be in the ports so I see some of my weekend disappearing > looking at it :-) > > It runs on over two dozen operating systems, including windows. Their are > two primary reasons I can get such high transfer rates from simple SATA > drives. The first one was the selection of the mainboard that had a PCI-X > slots, I built this system before PCI-Express mainboards and controllers hit > the market. The PCI bus is severely restricted and obsolete, I'm simply > going to post the theoretical maximum throughput in MB/s for the various bus > standards: f(x,y) = x-bits * y-MHz / 8 = maximum theoretical throughput in > MB/s PCI: 32 bits * 33 Mhz / 8 = 132 MB/s (standard PCI bus found on every > pc) PCI: (32bits, 66MHz) = 264MB/s (Cards are commonplace, mainboards > aren't) PCI-X: (64, 33) = 264MB/s (obsolete, won't find it on new boards.) > PCI-X: (64, 66) = 528MB/s (Commonplace.) PCI-X: (64, 100) = 800 PCI-X: (64, > 133) = 1064 (Commonplace.) PCI-X: (64, 266) = 2128 PCI-X: (64, 533) = 4264 > (very hard to find, even on high-end equipment.) PCI-X version 1 (66MHz - > 133MHz) and PCI-X version 2 (266MHz - 533MHz). PCI-X is backwards compatible > with PCI and slower versions of PCI-X, for example you can put a standard > PCI card in a PCI-X 533MHz slot and it will simply run at (32, 33) similarly > a 66 MHz PCI card will run at (32, 66) and so on and so forth. PCI-X is also > forwards compatible in the fact that you can run a 133MHz PCI-X card in a > standard (32, 33) PCI slot. Because of the backwards and an forwards > compatibly I feel that PCI-X is superior to PCI-Express, *BUT* PCI-Express > moving forwards is far far superior to PCI & PCI-X because it does not have > 13 years of legacy to remain compatible with, it's cheaper to produce, and > it's already in lower-end desktop systems as a replacement for AGP thanks to > all the gamers. A few years from now PCI will end up where ISA / EISA are. > I'm veering way off topic so I will not go into anymore details about PCI, > PCI-X, and PCI-Express. Google around for the shortcomings of PCI / PCI-X > and why PCI-Express is the future. PCI-Express: PCIe is not compatible with > PCI or PCI-X (except for PCIe to PCI bridging) and it's just, well, totally > different from the PCI spec and I'm already way off topic so again just > google the details. It's theoretical maximums are expressed in Gigabits per > second but I will convert them to MB/s for comparison with PCI and PCI-X. > x1: 2.5Gbps = 312.5MB/s x2: 625MB/s x4: 1250MB/s x8: 2500MB/s x12: 3750MB/s > x16: 5000MB/s x32: 10000MB/s Anyways back on topic, what was the topic? Oh > yes, why you won't see 200MB/s - 350MB/s if your using a standard PCI slot. > If you look back up all the way at the top you will see that the standard > PCI bus is a crap shoot and that it's limited to a theoretical maximum of > 132 MB/s. What this means is that your RAID controller and the disks > attached to it and the cache buffers attached to the disks are all capped at > that theoretical maximum of 132MB/s. Then you have to take into account that > the PCI bus is shared with other devices such as the network card, video > card, USB, etc. Your RAID controller has to fight will all these devices and > a 1Gbit NIC card can eat up 125MB/s (12.5MB/s for a 100Mbit NIC). The next > reason for those high gains is because I picked drives with 16MB cache > buffers and that I'm insane enough to run a production server with the > write-back cache policy enabled on the array controller and enabling the > write cache on the disks. This is stupidly insane unless you've planned for > the worsts. The worst case scenario would be that you corrupt the array into > an unrepairable state and loose everything if you had a power failure. -- > BSD Podcasts @ http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/ > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > attach iozone result of amrd0 with 4 spindle Seagate Baracuda 300 Gb SATA II > (1 hotspare) > w/ Intel SRCS16 PCI-X > Is that fast or what ? :) > I'll have to take a closer look, but the first thing I noticed in your test report is that you are only using a 1MB test file. You should run a test that will also max out the on disk / controller buffers. I think the Baracuda's have a 16MB buffers (16MBx4=64MB) so try a 128MB test file. Also be nice to see more detailed hardware specs about the system and what version of FreeBSD are you running. Thanks. -- BSD Podcasts @ http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"