Danny Carroll wrote:
I've just become the proud new owner of an Areca 1231-ML which I plan to
use to set up an office server.
I'm very curious as to how ZFS compares to a hardware solution so I plan
to run some tests before I put this thing to work.
Having just read this whole thread, I
Koen Smits wrote:
Areca Support:
Dear Sir,
the only difference is
in JBOD mode, controller configure all drives as passthrough disk.
in RAID mode, you have to configure passthrough disk by yourself in RAID
mode
in other words, you can use raid with passthrough
Koen Smits wrote:
Please let us know what Areca says about the caching.
If you ask me, these results definitely are cached.
Sorry for the delay.
Areca got back to me. It took a few days but I got someone who seemed
to know what they were talking about.
From what I can gather the cache is
Those numbers are pretty good, right? Who needs onboard XOR anyway :)
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 03:30, Danny Carroll f...@dannysplace.net wrote:
Koen Smits wrote:
My guess is it probably has to do with the way ZFS does cache flushes:
Please let us know what Areca says about the caching.
If you ask me, these results definitely are cached.
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 10:02, Danny Carroll f...@dannysplace.net wrote:
Koen Smits wrote:
Those numbers are pretty good, right? Who needs onboard XOR anyway :)
Those numbers are
Koen Smits wrote:
Please let us know what Areca says about the caching.
If you ask me, these results definitely are cached.
Are yes but are they cached by the OS or by the array controller :-)
-D
___
freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org mailing list
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Danny Carroll f...@dannysplace.net wrote:
I'd like to post some results of what I have found with my tests.
I did a few different types of tests. Basically a set of 5-disk tests
and a set of 12-disk tests.
I did this because I only had 5 ports available on my
One thing I am at a loss to understand is why turning off the disk
caches when testing the JBOD performance produced almost identical (very
slightly better) results. Perhaps it was a case of the ZFS internal
cache making the disks cache redundant? Comparing to the ARECA
passthrough (where
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8 Jan, 2009, at 02:33 , Danny Carroll wrote:
I'd like to post some results of what I have found with my tests.
I did a few different types of tests. Basically a set of 5-disk tests
and a set of 12-disk tests.
I did this because I only had 5
Koen Smits wrote:
My guess is it probably has to do with the way ZFS does cache flushes:
http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Evil_Tuning_Guide#Cache_Flushes
It might be worth it to disable the forced flushing and test again, if
you feel like it.
I've just done this and the
I'd like to post some results of what I have found with my tests.
I did a few different types of tests. Basically a set of 5-disk tests
and a set of 12-disk tests.
I did this because I only had 5 ports available on my onboard controller
and I wanted to see how the areca compared to that. I also
Hi,
Wes Morgan wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008, Matt Simerson wrote:
The Areca cards do NOT have the cache enabled by default. I
ordered the
optional battery and RAM upgrade for my collection of
1231ML cards. Even with
the BBWC, the cache is not enabled by default. I had to go
out of
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008, Jan Mikkelsen wrote:
Hi,
Wes Morgan wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008, Matt Simerson wrote:
The Areca cards do NOT have the cache enabled by default. I
ordered the
optional battery and RAM upgrade for my collection of
1231ML cards. Even with
the BBWC, the cache is not
Matt Simerson wrote:
Allow me to introduce you to Marvell. The sell the SATA controller used
in the Sun thumper (X4500). I've used that same SATA controller under
OpenSolaris and FreeBSD. Unfortunately, that controller doesn't use
multi-lane cables. When you pack in 3 controllers and 24 disks,
On Nov 17, 2008, at 3:43 AM, Danny Carroll wrote:
Matt Simerson wrote:
Allow me to introduce you to Marvell. The sell the SATA controller
used
in the Sun thumper (X4500). I've used that same SATA controller under
OpenSolaris and FreeBSD. Unfortunately, that controller doesn't use
multi-lane
Matt Simerson wrote:
Disk caching is a completely different animal, and one which I didn't
mention. I'm spoke only about the write cache on the controller. Mine
all arrived off by default, which is a VERY reasonable default
configuration. Page 97 of the manual says about it:
Ahhh, no I was
On Nov 13, 2008, at 21:59, Danny Carroll wrote:
Scott Long wrote:
The Areca controller likely doesn't buffer/cache for disks in JBOD
mode,
as others in this thread have stated. Without buffering, simple disk
controllers will almost always be faster than accelerated raid
controllers because
Eirik Øverby wrote:
I have noticed that my 3ware controllers, after updating firmware
recently, have removed the JBOD option entirely, classifying it as
something you wouldn't want to do with that kind of hardware anyway. I
believed then, and even more so now, they are correct.
It kinda
On Nov 16, 2008, at 7:15 PM, Danny Carroll wrote:
Eirik Øverby wrote:
I have noticed that my 3ware controllers, after updating firmware
recently, have removed the JBOD option entirely, classifying it as
something you wouldn't want to do with that kind of hardware
anyway. I
believed then,
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 10:06:42PM -0800, Matt Simerson wrote:
On Nov 16, 2008, at 7:15 PM, Danny Carroll wrote:
Eirik Øverby wrote:
I have noticed that my 3ware controllers, after updating firmware
recently, have removed the JBOD option entirely, classifying it as
something you wouldn't
Danny Carroll wrote:
Danny Carroll wrote:
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
I'd like to see the performance difference between these scenarios:
- Memory cache enabled on Areca, write caching enabled on disks
- Memory cache enabled on Areca, write caching disabled on disks
- Memory cache disabled on
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:57:58PM +, Dieter wrote:
The Areca controller he has can do caching of its own (it has 256MBytes
of cache). Meaning, if you disable write cache on the disks (but not
the Areca controller itself), all of the caching being done is purely
Good idea.
Actually, what I will do eventually is *also* post the results to the
mailing list. It will probably be around long after my own server is gone.
-D
Willem Jan Withagen wrote:
Danny Carroll wrote:
Danny Carroll wrote:
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
I'd like to see the performance
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13 Nov, 2008, at 15:59 , Danny Carroll wrote:
[snip]
It is entirely possible. I do not know however if the Areca cache
works
just for Raid or also in JBOD mode.
I think some RAID controllers do not use the cache when you export the
Danny Carroll wrote:
Danny Carroll wrote:
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
I'd like to see the performance difference between these scenarios:
- Memory cache enabled on Areca, write caching enabled on disks
- Memory cache enabled on Areca, write caching disabled on disks
- Memory cache disabled on
For the array(s)
9 x ST31000340AS 1tb disks
1 x ST31000333AS 1tb disk (trying to swap this for a ST31000340AS)
There seems to be little difference between enabling and disabling the
disk cache on the Areca. This leads me to two conclusions:
1. Disabling the write cache does nothing
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:57:58PM +, Dieter wrote:
For the array(s)
9 x ST31000340AS 1tb disks
1 x ST31000333AS 1tb disk (trying to swap this for a ST31000340AS)
There seems to be little difference between enabling and disabling the
disk cache on the Areca. This leads me to two
Ivan Voras wrote:
Danny Carroll wrote:
- I have seen sustained 130Mb reads from ZFS:
capacity operationsbandwidth
pool used avail read write read write
-- - - - - - -
bigarray1.29T 3.25T 1.10K 0 140M
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
The tuning variables I advocate for a system with 2GB of RAM or more,
on RELENG_7, are:
vm.kmem_size=1536M
vm.kmem_size_max=1536M
There is no point in setting vm.kmem_size_max. Setting vm.kmem_size is enough.
vm.kmem_size_max is used for auto-tuning of kmem size which
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
Well, my understanding (which is probably wrong) is that the memory
used for the ARC is somehow separate from that of the kmap. I was
under the impression the kmap was used by ZFS for other things, and
did not include ARC.
kmem is used by ARC. You can check your total
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 01:44:25AM -0700, Simun Mikecin wrote:
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
The tuning variables I advocate for a system with 2GB of RAM or more,
on RELENG_7, are:
vm.kmem_size=1536M
vm.kmem_size_max=1536M
There is no point in setting vm.kmem_size_max. Setting vm.kmem_size is
Hello all,
I've just become the proud new owner of an Areca 1231-ML which I plan to
use to set up an office server.
I'm very curious as to how ZFS compares to a hardware solution so I plan
to run some tests before I put this thing to work.
The purpose of this email is to find out if anyone
Cross-posting this to freebsd-fs, as I'm sure people there will have
other recommendations. (This is one of those rare cross-posting
situations.)
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 01:14:55PM +1000, Danny Carroll wrote:
I've just become the proud new owner of an Areca 1231-ML which I plan to
use to
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
I think these sets of tests are good. There are some others I'd like to
see, but they'd only be applicable if the 1231-ML has hardware cache. I
can mention what those are if the card does have hardware caching.
The card comes standard with 256Mb of cache.
I do have
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 02:07:56PM +1000, Danny Carroll wrote:
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
I think these sets of tests are good. There are some others I'd like to
see, but they'd only be applicable if the 1231-ML has hardware cache. I
can mention what those are if the card does have hardware
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 02:07:56PM +1000, Danny Carroll wrote:
- Memory cache enabled on Areca, write caching enabled on disks
- Memory cache enabled on Areca, write caching disabled on disks
- Memory cache disabled on Areca, write caching enabled on disks
- Memory
36 matches
Mail list logo
