On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 12:24:12AM -0500, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> 2) It's just plain *astounding* how inefficient some of those
>    implementations are.  On hardware with comparable memory bandwidth
>    and CPU cycles available, *and lacking hardware XOR support*, with
>    the same disks, RAIDframe is often considerably faster.  I have
>    never understood how some RAID vendors' firmware can consistently
>    perform so poorly.

I have no experience of the RAID controllers, but I'm not particularly
happy with the NetBSD RAIDframe implementation.  I bought fast disks,
configured RAID - and found out that RAID drops the performance to a
fraction of that of the disks.

I don't know why, because when RAID is 100% busy, CPU load is almost
zero and the disk load 25% or so.  It's like if RAIDframe had some
usleep() calls in the code to make things go slower..

  -jm