Re: 3Ware 9x00 controllers
Pasi Pirhonen <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.tao.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi, On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 11:34:27AM +0200, Remco Barendse wrote: > On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Pasi Pirhonen wrote: > > >Just to comment this part. I would not hurry too much with this > >updayte. My initial testing shows some 30% performance degration with > >this new driver + firmware. The driver actually is pretty much same as > >in 'trasferring linux scsi-layer request to the firmware and back', but > >there is this new (shouldn't this be available begining of summer?) BBU > >(Batter Backup Unit?) support for cache, so the ~100MB of your cache > >won't 'stay on it's way to the platter' when one does loose suddently > >power from the box :) > > Oooooops! The card is already flashed but ok. > As i said, it's reverseable (thank god) by just booting the previous version of the driver. That just flashes the previous version of firmware back in while loading. > > >Good thing is that one is able to boot back to the previous version of > >driver. The driver just flashes the old firmware in at boot. > > > >I am actually doing some numbers now with this old firmware to be > >compared to new one. I didn't do much 'logging' with this x86-64 box > >having 3w-9xxx and the ia32-box isn't available for testing anymore > >(there is almoust 800GB data already which i won't play with :). > > Great, if you have the results let's both raise an issue at > 3ware about it, hopefully they'll improve the driver. It's more like 10% for general (sequential read/write and random read/write). Mostly the sequentila writing being slower a lot. before it wrote like 90+MB/s for single thread. That slowing down to like 70+MB/s for 8 paralle threads. Now it's in range of 70-MB/s for single and some 65+MB/s for 8 threads. I really have to make some more testing still tho, so let this be 'one more shot update' for this. > > If the box boots after install I'll post some benchmarks of my array with > 4 raptors. > that should not make the sequential writes any faster as the fabric itself seems to be saturating at about 100MB/s (i think that is supposed to be the write speed for 9500-seris). Raptors being 10k drives maybe affect for random access patterns tho. -- Pasi Pirhonen - [email protected] - http://iki.fi/upi/