Performance 4.x vs. 6.x

[Danial Thom]

I'm not quote sure what you're trying to say,
becuase clearly your not using a SATA controller,
so you can't say the drives work in freebsd 4.x.
And I only used Areca because its what I had
lying around. I didn't try to make any specific
analysis, or say that SATA was faster than scsi,
only that the new drives are very fast. You can't
compare scsi and sata directly really, becuase
they don't use the same drivers or the same
cards. 

there's a lot more people running squid on
freebsd then running usenet servers, so its not
likely that your "analysis" means much to anyone
other than yourself.

DT
--- Mike Horwath <drechsau at Geeks.ORG> wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:03:04AM -0700,
> Danial Thom wrote:
> > We come from Earth; we're just more informed.
> The
> > WD740ADFD's do NOT work on Freebsd 4.x. I'm
> sure
> > you are talking about the WD740GD. I DID say
> the
> > NEW ones. They are a lot faster than the GDs.
> I
> > used them with FreeBSD 4.x with an Areca SATA
> > card and they performed similarly to 15K
> Fujitsu
> > SCSIs on a heavily loaded squid system. 
> 
> So you required a SATAII controller for an SATA
> disk?
> 
> squid?  Sure, somewhat heavy access.
> 
> How about UseNet?
> 
> I have 16 WD740ADFD disks in a RAID5 config
> (with a hot spare even!)
> that is just cranking along.  Economics said I
> had to go this route,
> not performance.
> 
> Since I needed *more* spindles and needed
> *more* space, I had to go
> this route.  It performs adequately.
> 
> It replaced the 6x73GB disks at 15KRPM -
> performance was *much* better
> with the SCSI, but at 2.7TB per day, I needed
> *more* retention to feed
> back to my peers and my internal network.
> 
> > Also when you are using a SATA drive that
> *works*
> > in 4.x its running in some reduced transfer
> mode,
> > so you can't expect to get optimal
> performance or
> > anything close. So "works" is almost a
> euphemism
> > for "doesn't barf", but they don't really
> work
> > well no matter how good the drive is.
> 
> More spew.
> 
> > For my needs, its cheaper to go with SCSI
> than to
> > buy the sata card as there's only about a
> $250.
> > difference in the SCSI  hardware, and I don't
> use
> > up my slot. Hence, the silliness of operating
> in
> > the FreeBSD camp.
> 
> Ah, cheaper, now we know the reason for the
> difference.
> 
> It sure isn't performance.
> 
> > Note that the drives work with 6.x but squid
> > performance doesn't measure up, so again, 4.x
> > with SCSI is the best bang for the buck
> choice.
> 
> Change controllers and don't be a wank.
> 
> I went down the path of ARECA controllers for
> my news spool project
> (30TB of disk) and the controllers were fast
> for access, but randomly
> dropped disks or volumes for no reason I could
> find.  I loved the
> speed, hated the randomness.
> 
> I changed down the AMCC path, I lose some
> performance (not worth
> posting numbers, it was under 5%), but no more
> issues.
> 
> FreeBSD 6, Opteron systems and 64bit.
> 
> The reason for this part of the post?  To show
> it isn't an issue of
> not wanting to embrace new
> hardare/architectures, but that 32bit
> operating systems and hardware isn't dead, for
> any of the reasons
> given so far in this thread.
> 
> -- 
> Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau at Geeks.ORG
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-performance at freebsd.org mailing list
>
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com