Andrew Miehs wrote:
On 11/01/2008, at 3:19 PM, Boris Pavlov wrote:
I am not a big fan of 3ware Raid controllers. Up until now it was
they were just plan SLOW...
just a quick word from me - simple, can not agree that they are slow.
they are not SLOW (caps on) either - comparing to soft raid - same
raid level on same computer.
I am glad that you have had better success with them than I have.
My 'slow' experience comes from 2 Linux servers running
[ 40.834489] 3ware Storage Controller device driver for Linux
[ 46.993597] scsi2 : 3ware Storage Controller
[ 46.993692] 3w-xxxx: scsi2: Found a 3ware Storage Controller at
0xafa0, IRQ: 22.
[ 46.993980] Vendor: 3ware Model: Logical Disk 0 Rev: 1.2
[ 46.995418] Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI
[ 46.995952] Vendor: 3ware Model: Logical Disk 2 Rev: 1.2
[ 46.997401] Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI
[ 46.999678] 3ware 9000 Storage Controller device driver for Linux
0000:02:02.0 RAID bus controller: 3ware Inc 3ware 7000-series ATA-RAID
Subsystem: 3ware Inc 3ware Inc 3ware 7xxx/8xxx-series PATA/SATA-RAID
Flags: bus master, 66MHz, medium devsel, latency 64, IRQ 22
I/O ports at afa0 [size=16]
Memory at fe7ffff0 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=16]
Memory at fd800000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=8M]
Expansion ROM at fe7e0000 [disabled] [size=64K]
Capabilities:  Power Management version 1
These cards are about 4 years old now - and the disks directly connected
SATA controller are quicker than the the same disks connected via the 3ware
controller - timing with 'dd' and hdparm.
two questions -
1.) did you read the suggestions on the 3ware's site?
2.) and second, sorry i do not want to be abusive, but how long (as
uptime) after the creation of the volume you actually did test the
did you check the status of the array with tw_cli?
almost as i tough - sometimes the check show less performance, but in
general the software raid performs really bad on a burdened server -
i've seen this and actually was swearing when, say, about 5 years ago
purchased my first 3ware (pata pci) board, which actually solved my
problems. afaicr, the board was about 10-15% slower than hdparm with the
disks attached to the main board ata. but this is not the same case when
the load goes high, believe me
the server used to nearly hang before
hdparm is not quite relevant, by the way...
PS if you want, we can discuss the details in private - i do use several
different amcc/3ware boards, and any possible problems are catching my
And I have had similar experience on 1 windows server - which is running
the same card.
- Windows 2003 running as a file server.
- This will be replaced in the next 3 months with a NetAPP
Personally - I would use some sort of SAS/ SCSI Raid for the boot disks,
and use an external storage such
as 'Infortrend' or NetApp depending on budget. I really dislike internal
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-isp-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com