RAID5 speed question.
Have an ancient 4.1R mail server to replace. It has about 3000 accounts. Usual /var/mail to store mail. /var/mail is RAID5 on an old Dell PERC3 card. Its worked pretty well and have lived through 3 drive failures over the years. New Dell box with a PERC5/i. Same drive setup, a 500GB RAID5 for /var/mail. I do an ls -l in /var/mail on the old 4.10 machine and I get a directory listing in about 2 seconds. This is about 3000 mailboxes. On the new machine running 7.3 with the PERC5/i I rsync'd /var/mail and do an ls -l and it takes a full 22 seconds to get a directory listing. A plain ls in /var/mail on both machines is instantaneous. I know RAID5 is not 'optimal' for this but I'm surprised at the difference in how long it takes to do a directory listing using ls -l on the new machine compared to the old one. The new array is 500GB compared to about 36GB on the older machine. Shouldn't a long directory listing be faster on the PERC5/i compared to the old PERC3? Other than that the new machine in all other aspects is faster, a lot faster. Thanks. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Speed question
Hi! I have on my LAN a server FBSD 5.4 on DMZ. The router is made of linux (yes I'll change it to FBSD ASAP) with 3 NIC: eth0 (inet), eth1 (LAN), eth2 (DMZ). Strange thing is that when server is on DMZ and I access it from the LAN with ftp client my transfer speed is 30 Mbit/s. The network itself is 100 Mbit. BUT if I move server from LAN to DMZ I have the max speed arround 100 Mbit/s. BTW: server in DMZ is connected directly to the NIC on router and on the LAN side I have all users connected on one switch which is connected to the router. Is this normall for all kinds of routers (linux, bsd, etc.) with setup like mine to behave like this or is it just my router setup? Regards, Sasa pgpvEkuFy7waX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Speed question
--On 26. oktober 2005 9:46 +0200 Sasa Stupar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi! I have on my LAN a server FBSD 5.4 on DMZ. The router is made of linux (yes I'll change it to FBSD ASAP) with 3 NIC: eth0 (inet), eth1 (LAN), eth2 (DMZ). Strange thing is that when server is on DMZ and I access it from the LAN with ftp client my transfer speed is 30 Mbit/s. The network itself is 100 Mbit. BUT if I move server from LAN to DMZ I have the max speed arround 100 Mbit/s. BTW: server in DMZ is connected directly to the NIC on router and on the LAN side I have all users connected on one switch which is connected to the router. Is this normall for all kinds of routers (linux, bsd, etc.) with setup like mine to behave like this or is it just my router setup? Regards, Sasa Made a mistake in the post: BUT if I move server from LAN to DMZ... should be BUT if I move server from DMZ to LAN...# Sasa pgpd7S3W9tshi.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Speed question
On 10/26/05, Sasa Stupar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --On 26. oktober 2005 9:46 +0200 Sasa Stupar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi! I have on my LAN a server FBSD 5.4 on DMZ. The router is made of linux (yes I'll change it to FBSD ASAP) with 3 NIC: eth0 (inet), eth1 (LAN), eth2 (DMZ). Strange thing is that when server is on DMZ and I access it from the LAN with ftp client my transfer speed is 30 Mbit/s. The network itself is 100 Mbit. BUT if I move server from LAN to DMZ I have the max speed arround 100 Mbit/s. BTW: server in DMZ is connected directly to the NIC on router and on the LAN side I have all users connected on one switch which is connected to the router. Is this normall for all kinds of routers (linux, bsd, etc.) with setup like mine to behave like this or is it just my router setup? Regards, Sasa Made a mistake in the post: BUT if I move server from LAN to DMZ... should be BUT if I move server from DMZ to LAN...# Sasa If you mean that bandwidth between 2 boxes on one switch is higher than that between 2 boxes connected to different NICs on some server, then that's absolutely normal and expected. No server can match the speed of a Cisco, and no Cisco can match the speed of a cheap unmanaged switch. If you mean that ftp client and ftp server are connected to different NICs on the router in both cases (30Mbit and 100Mbit transfers), it is explainable, because traffic from DMZ to LAN usually gets a closer look than that from LAN to LAN. You might or might not get better performance with FreeBSD as the router. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Speed question
--On 26. oktober 2005 13:11 +0400 Andrew P. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/26/05, Sasa Stupar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --On 26. oktober 2005 9:46 +0200 Sasa Stupar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi! I have on my LAN a server FBSD 5.4 on DMZ. The router is made of linux (yes I'll change it to FBSD ASAP) with 3 NIC: eth0 (inet), eth1 (LAN), eth2 (DMZ). Strange thing is that when server is on DMZ and I access it from the LAN with ftp client my transfer speed is 30 Mbit/s. The network itself is 100 Mbit. BUT if I move server from LAN to DMZ I have the max speed arround 100 Mbit/s. BTW: server in DMZ is connected directly to the NIC on router and on the LAN side I have all users connected on one switch which is connected to the router. Is this normall for all kinds of routers (linux, bsd, etc.) with setup like mine to behave like this or is it just my router setup? Regards, Sasa Made a mistake in the post: BUT if I move server from LAN to DMZ... should be BUT if I move server from DMZ to LAN...# Sasa If you mean that bandwidth between 2 boxes on one switch is higher than that between 2 boxes connected to different NICs on some server, then that's absolutely normal and expected. No server can match the speed of a Cisco, and no Cisco can match the speed of a cheap unmanaged switch. If you mean that ftp client and ftp server are connected to different NICs on the router in both cases (30Mbit and 100Mbit transfers), it is explainable, because traffic from DMZ to LAN usually gets a closer look than that from LAN to LAN. You might or might not get better performance with FreeBSD as the router. Thank you for the explanation. Sasa pgp8R1Yz5L7LY.pgp Description: PGP signature
download speed question
Hi all Do you think there is different for the download speed using wget in https and http? If yes, ls it big different? Thank you __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: download speed question
ann kok [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all Do you think there is different for the download speed using wget in https and http? Yes. http is less overhead, thus faster. If yes, ls it big different? No. Unless you have a very old computer that is very slow to do the encrypting/decrypting. -- Bill Moran Potential Technologies http://www.potentialtech.com ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: download speed question
On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 04:44:42AM -0700, ann kok wrote: Hi all Do you think there is different for the download speed using wget in https and http? If yes, ls it big different? Thank you I would think that https would generally be slower due to the overhead of encryption. How much slower I couldn't say. Nathan -- PGP Public Key: pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xD8527E49 pgplFtdxWBGYl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Vinum RAID5 speed question
Hi, - I plan on setting up a vinum RAID5 array of three 120GB IDE disks. The disks will be attached to two Promise 100 TX2 controllers, on which two other disks are residing, too. The following questions have come to my mind: 1. I thought about getting disks with 8MB cache. Does the bigger cache size affect performance in a RAID5 scenario? 2. Currently I'm running a RAID5 with 4 older 5400rpm disks in that machine, and write speeds are around 3MB/s. I guess that several people here are running vinum RAID5 with current IDE disks, so what throughput can I expect from the new planned setup? 3. The volume is meant for storing all kinds of files with all kinds of sizes. My current setup has a blocksize of 489kb. From other people's experience, what blocksize might bring the best results for such general purpose? 4. Any other advice would be welcome, of course. :-) Thanks, Martin ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Vinum RAID5 speed question
On Friday, 26 September 2003 at 13:22:09 +0200, Martin Brecher wrote: Hi, - I plan on setting up a vinum RAID5 array of three 120GB IDE disks. The disks will be attached to two Promise 100 TX2 controllers, on which two other disks are residing, too. The following questions have come to my mind: 1. I thought about getting disks with 8MB cache. Does the bigger cache size affect performance in a RAID5 scenario? Possibly. 2. Currently I'm running a RAID5 with 4 older 5400rpm disks in that machine, and write speeds are around 3MB/s. I guess that several people here are running vinum RAID5 with current IDE disks, so what throughput can I expect from the new planned setup? Difficult to say. Possibly a little more. 3. The volume is meant for storing all kinds of files with all kinds of sizes. My current setup has a blocksize of 489kb. From other people's experience, what blocksize might bring the best results for such general purpose? That probably bases on a recommendation I made some years ago, before people pointed out the errors of my ways. You'll get fractionally (and possibly not measurably) better performance if the stripe size is a multiple of the block size. Since that's 16 kB nowadays, a stripe size of 496 kB might be better. 4. Any other advice would be welcome, of course. :-) Well, the obvious one is that RAID-5 is not intended for writing :-) Greg -- When replying to this message, please copy the original recipients. If you don't, I may ignore the reply or reply to the original recipients. For more information, see http://www.lemis.com/questions.html See complete headers for address and phone numbers. NOTE: Due to the currently active Microsoft-based worms, I am limiting all incoming mail to 131,072 bytes. This is enough for normal mail, but not for large attachments. Please send these as URLs. pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
