Fastpath..

[mbreslin]

I don't know why everything always gets so confrontational, I bought it I can certainly complain. Every piece of literature I've read, promotional or otherwise, LSI refers to the 9260/9260DE as SATA+SAS.

From the 9260 pdf:

"MegaRAID® SATA+SAS 9260-8i / MegaRAID SAS 9260DE-8i Eight-Port 6Gb/s PCI Express SATA and SAS RAID Controller"

"Support for 3Gb/s and 6Gb/s SATA and SAS hard drives"

[Tiltevros]

Read carefully SAS6GB/s - SATA controller.....

[mbreslin]

How can I argue when you've just made up from thin air something to support your point of view? What you typed isn't in what I pasted unless you switch words around.

I'm not interested in this discussion anymore. I bought it I can point out its faults, both of the product and of the company.

You like them, wonderful, unless you're employed by them or own stock in them I don't see why you should care what I think.

[Tiltevros]

last page

http://www.lsi.com/DistributionSyste...S2_Apr1910.pdf

6Gb/s SAS Performance Advantage
6Gb/s SAS is designed for backward compatibility
with 3Gb/s SAS as well as with 6Gb/s and
3Gb/s SATA hard drives. Regardless of the drive
speed, 6Gb/s MegaRAID controllers will deliver
significant performance improvements in both
read and write applications as compared to their
3Gb/s predecessors. Other new features of the
6Gb/s MegaRAID SATA+SAS controllers include
greater signal integrity using Decision Feedback
Equalization, support for more sophisticated
SAS topologies using Expander Self-discovery/
Self-configuration, and additional safeguards to
enhance data protection.

http://www.lsi.com/DistributionSyste..._PB_072209.pdf

[Tiltevros]

You like them, wonderful, unless you're employed by them or own stock in them I don't see why you should care what I think.

ok thanks..

[mbreslin]

"as well as with 6Gb/s and
3Gb/s SATA hard drives"

My only argument was that they don't (according to you) "officially" support the only 6gb/s sata drives that exist.

[Tiltevros]

do i have to make a print screen to see it??? go to the last page and see the compatibility list......
Call them and ask them with products are supporting and they will say.... GO to our site and see the compatibility list... Tell them why u r not supporting
C300's and then post it...

again... last page....
http://www.lsi.com/DistributionSyste...S2_Apr1910.pdf

[Tiltevros]

now for the 6GB/s hard drive.... they just dont support 6GB/s SSD... witch they dont say them Hard drives in IT any more.
Even in stores they say Hard drives = mechanical drives . SSD = electrostatic Drives or NAND drives...

[mbreslin]

do i have to make a print screen to see it??? go to the last page and see the compatibility list......

This is exhausting, I know they don't officially support the c300 I read the pdf sir. That's what I was "complaining" about as you said earlier.

I paid the money I get to complain. Simple. Who cares what I think? Are you the CEO?

I take your point about when they say 6gb/s sata hard drives they don't mean ssd, I didn't think of that. I will watch more carefully in the future as more and more I notice people only refer to mechanical disks as hard drives. Thanks.

[Tiltevros]

COMPATIBILITY LIST FOR 6 GB/s SAS - SATA
SEAGATE
SAS 6Gb/s ST9300503SS FT00 300GB 2.5" SED
SATA 6Gb/s ST32000641AS CC13 2TB 3.5" 7200 RPM
SATA 6Gb/s ST3500410AS ZZATZZZZ 500GB 3.5" 7200 RPM
SAS 6Gb/s ST3450857SS 0005 450GB 3.5" 15K RPM
SAS 6Gb/s ST9146803SS 0002 146GB 2.5" 10K RPM
SAS 6Gb/s ST9146803SS B235 146GB 2.5" 10K RPM
SAS 6Gb/s ST9146703SS FT00 136GB 2.5" SED
SAS 6Gb/s ST9146803SS 004 146GB 2.5" 10K RPM
SAS 6Gb/s ST9146802SS MSB0 146GB 2.5" 10K RPM
SAS 6Gb/s ST9300603SS B248 300GB 2.5" 10K RPM
SAS 6Gb/s ST9500430SS 0001 500GB 2.5" 7200 RPM
SAS 6Gb/s ST9146703SS MSB3 147GB 2.5" 10K RPM
SAS 6Gb/s ST9146802SS MSB03 146GB 2.5" 10K RPM
SAS 6Gb/s ST9146802SS 207 146GB 2.5" 10K RPM
SAS 6Gb/s ST9146803SS ER60 146GB 2.5" 10K RPM

IBM
SAS 6Gb/s ESXST9146852SS B623 146GB 2.5"

HITACHI
SAS 6Gb/s HUS156060VLS601 B530 600GB 3.5" SED
SAS 6Gb/s HUS156060VLS600 A392 600GB 3.5" 15K RPM
SAS 6Gb/s HUC151473CSS600 A330 73GB 2.5"
SAS 6Gb/s HUC151414CSS600 A370 147GB 2.5"
SAS 6Gb/s HUC151414CSS600 A330 147GB 2.5"
SAS 6Gb/s HUC103014CSS600 A529 147G 2.5"
SAS 6Gb/s HUC103030CSS600 A120 300GB 2.5"
SAS 6Gb/s HUC151414CSS600 A330 147GB 2.5" 15K RPM
SAS 6Gb/s HUC151473CSS600 A330 73GB 2.5" 15K RPM
SAS 6Gb/s HUC103014CSS600 A120 147GB 2.5" 10K RPM
SAS 6Gb/s HUS156045VLS600 a53E 450GB 3.5" 15K RPM

FUJITSU
SAS 6Gb/s MBE2147RC 0103 147GB 2.5" 15K RPM
SAS 6Gb/s MBD2147RC 0102 147GB 2.5" 10K RPM

C300 THE ONLY 6GB/s DRIVE OUT THERE
http://www.lsi.com/DistributionSyste...S2_Apr1910.pdf

[mbreslin]

I forgot seagate came out with those 6gb/s sata spinners, what can I say, you win?

I don't think mechanical drives need a sata 6gb/s interface for 150mb/s sequential.

[AceNZ]

Edit: Special tuning? Isn't it controller bound?

Depends on what you're doing.

8 drives at 6 Gbps = 48 Gbps max.
PCIe 2.0 is 4.0 Gbps per lane x8 = 32 Gbps max.

So a well-implemented or tuned / OC'd PCIe should in theory help performance in some scenarios.

It's also possible to encounter memory or CPU bottlenecks, although even DDR2 at 800 MHz delivers about 51 Gbps, so bandwidth shouldn't normally be an issue (provided the system is otherwise idle) -- but latency might be.

[Tiltevros]

This is exhausting, I know they don't officially support the c300 I read the pdf sir. That's what I was "complaining" about as you said earlier.

I paid the money I get to complain. Simple. Who cares what I think? Are you the CEO?

I take your point about when they say 6gb/s sata hard drives they don't mean ssd, I didn't think of that. I will watch more carefully in the future as more and more I notice people only refer to mechanical disks as hard drives. Thanks.

Im not the CEO and i dont get any money from LSI...
You asked how the hell im getting that performance i post everything...
I even say to other ppl like anvil gulllars to make the files because i dont want all of u to think that i am a cheater or what ever...
I dont do what i dont like to get..
Im not here saying that i am the best or somethink like that..
im just trying like everyone here to maximize the performance from the equipment that i have.
Even the time that i didnt understand something like the story with norway ppl i said sorry when i find out my mistake.
So plz do not put any titles to me ok?

[mbreslin]

AceNZ: The drives I was referring to are g1/g2 x25m's. They are sata ii or 3gb/s or 24gbps theoretical. pcie x8 is not the bottleneck.

[GullLars]

I see nobody has posted any more benchmark results here, i was hoping someone had run the "detailed" config so we could have a more detailed look at the scaling.

BTW, mbreslin, you could contact LSI customer service and express your oppinion that they should validate C300 for use with the controller. It might help set things in motion.

[SteveRo]

Gull - I was going to do a softraid 12xR0 through the 1231 run it against "detailed"?

[SteveRo]

ok dynamic disk softraid 12xR0 acard 9010 with 1231ML4g as pass through no oc pcie 100, atto kept hanging on the last test, don't know why -

[GullLars]

It would be great if you could do the 1W and 4W configs (no cache i guess on the softraid), and the detailed ones.
The reason i made the "detailed" config was to show the scaling of IOPS by QD with finer granularity and linear scaling.
EDIT: is the softraid stable with OC?
EDIT2: i see you ran the "detailed" configs only, and still hit the 60K IOPS barrier.

[GullLars]

Here's a detailed granularity scaling of Steve's 12R0 softraid by QD. I only post 1 worker since the 4 worker run was uneventfull.



As you can see, the array hits diminishing returns at QD 4-5, and maxes out at QD 10. This array seems to be fairly optimal for light to moderate load random workloads, while getting accesstime penalty for higher queue depths.

Anyone with 9260 and fastpath care to run the "detailed" configs so i get some data to do comparisons?

[SteveRo]

It would be great if you could do the 1W and 4W configs (no cache i guess on the softraid), and the detailed ones.
The reason i made the "detailed" config was to show the scaling of IOPS by QD with finer granularity and linear scaling.
EDIT: is the softraid stable with OC?
EDIT2: i see you ran the "detailed" configs only, and still hit the 60K IOPS barrier.

haven't trid to oc - should be stable same as no pass through i would think. It should mov the curve up some - probably not that much - I will try later.

[Tiltevros]

gulllars here u go. I dont know how to set my drives on dynamic disk on 9260..
i could do 4 R0's and then soft raid them but i dont think that will give good results.

[GullLars]

@steve: right, it's controller bottleneck. No need to OC then

@tiltevros: you have a mysterious drop in the 4 worker results, could you re-run it? The scaling seems even and nice at low QDs

[Tiltevros]

for some reason my array shows some usage with my SQL while im running IOmeter. im killing the services but when i do that windows shows error msg with synch.
here is another run

[GullLars]

Here's new graphs. I added the IOPS/average accesstime too since it's correct numbers now.



It would be great if i could get simelar numbers from mbreslin and computurd too for a new comparison lineup

Edit, again as a reminder, the reason i include the IOPS/accesstime is as an indicator of scaling and quality of service.

[mbreslin]

I'll be happy to, unfortunately I'm very busy today, I can likely do it tomorrow and if not it will be monday for sure.