Hi Steve,
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 11:38:17AM +0100, Steven Hartland
wrote:> Thanks for that info. Have you had experience with the card
> itself? Just did a few benchmarks and considering the disks
> attached ( RAID 5 ) the performance is shockingly bad
> 20->30MB/s read off the device node no other IO happening
> ( measured using dd ).
> Does anyone have any recomendations for other SCSI
> RAID cards that can provide good performance and amd64
> support?
>
My 3210S generates around 45Mps:
su-2.05b# dd if=ft_sill_photos.zip of=/dev/null
4040211+1 records in
4040211+1 records out
2068588162 bytes transferred in 46.935343 secs (44073145 bytes/sec)
su-2.05b# dd if=ft_sill_photos.zip of=/dev/null bs=65536
31564+1 records in
31564+1 records out
2068588162 bytes transferred in 45.793030 secs (45172555 bytes/sec)
Compared to my 39320:
su-2.05b# cd /spare
su-2.05b# dd if=ft_sill_photos.zip of=/dev/null bs=65536
31564+1 records in
31564+1 records out
2068588162 bytes transferred in 84.538472 secs (24469193 bytes/sec)
which is where the system files are mounted (/, /var, /usr, etc).
Both cards are installed in 64 bit/66 MHz slots. The system
disk is a 10K IBM U160 disk, the RAID is composed of Seagate U320
drives. Still, performance is limited to U160 levels due to the
controllers or the drives...
Bruce
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I like bad!" Bruce Burden Austin, TX.
- Thuganlitha
The Power and the Prophet
Robert Don Hughes