E200 with Linux

[Adam Hansen]

I have the battery backup - see my specs above. I'm going to re-run the test over the weekend hoping that the array controller ramped up the cache which speeds things up.

Do not buy the e200 if you need any write performance.

[PC Doc]

Has anyone found a solution to this 'feature' yet. We have set up a main production HP ML150 G5 and failover backup 'off the shelf' server running ubuntu 8.04.1 server with VM's of windows 2003 domain and terminal server guests.

The HP is running nice and quick Xeon quad cores, and the backup is running standard Intel Quad E1200.

We have had to resort to running the backup server as the main production server because of the lack of speed on the ML150 G5.

I NEED a solution to this, and not HP's solution of 'buy another controller and run SAS'.



Why sell this controller if its so bad and limited.

Might be looking at ringing consumer affairs as I don't understand why anyone would sell a machine marketed as a server, with transfer speeds this low.

[Adam Hansen]

Well - I have some news re: this problem.

I found another link on this site that talked about disabling the on-controller cache because leaving this feature on disabled the write cache on the respective drives. The thread said disabling this feature moved a person with an e200i controller from 8MB/s to 120 MB/s for writes.

However, after spending hours and hours and hours of time trying to sort this out, I called CDW, got an RMA for my controllers (e200i and P400) and got an Adaptec 3805 with the necessary cables. I put it in and my write performance went from 12.8MB/s to 175MB/s. I definitely recommend this card.

If you do decide to ditch the HP cards and go with the Adaptec cards, here is what you need to know:

- If you have a server with an internal drive cage, you'll need to get the mini interface to amphenol connector (2 if you have 6 drives) in order to make it work.

- If you already have a config (e.g. array) on the drives, you will want to blow the config away using the HP controller before swapping the controller out.

- Definitely update the firmware on the system mainboard and on the array controller. This is huge - we had a problem where the controller couldn't see the drives until we loaded new controller firmware.

More food for thought - Adaptec support is excellent. If you think you might need to call them, make sure you have your LSI number (comes in the box) and you know what kind of drives you have (pull one out - write down the manufacturer e.g. Seagate, model e.g. ES2 and firmware).

Hope this helps...

[PC Doc]

That sounds fantastic. Once again, why do HP sell this POS.

You said you got an RMA for the E200, and got another RAID card. Do you mean HP gave you a credit on the card, and you purchased another one through them, or they gave you money back, and you purchased the card elsewhere?

Once again, thanks for the response, and that does sound like the way to go. I researched the specs of the machine before purchasing it, and didn't find any problems on various linux forums. As the card was supported, I assumed it would be full speed, and no where near as bad as it is.

[Adam Hansen]

I buy everything through CDW, so I just called my guy, said the card was terribly slow and said that I needed an RMA. I was within the RMA window, so he just cut me an RMA and the rest is history...

[Daniele Palumbo]

I have some good news...

but first please do a check:
install slackware 12.1 (also full) and run the test above sent by me.

this is not yet a solution, but it is at least something that we can verify.

i have updated the array to last firmware at yesterday (firmware cd version 8.30), and rebuilt the array with raid 1+0 on 4 sata 160GB Seagate Barracuda ES

thanks

[PC Doc]

And....

Does it improve the write speed any.

I have managed to get the predominate resellers of HP servers in Australia to ask users what purpose they want to user the servers for if they have an E200 card in their order, so they can notify them of the 'feature' of slow write speeds.

If the latest firmware fixes or improves dramatically the write speed, I will be updating ASAP.

[kairu0]

I've confirmed that the writing speed is pathetic still on the latest firmware 1.80, using both Debian Unstable and CentOS 5.2. System load is >6 when performing a large copy. :-(

Compared to the onboard SATA, this "upgrade" is really not performing well...

[Marco Stefanetti]

Hi all, I had the same problems, an apparently slow E200, but lately It's getting better and my tests are not so bad:

CentosOs 5.2 64bit

uname -a
Linux myname 2.6.18-92.el5 #1 SMP Tue Jun 10 18:51:06 EDT 2008 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

hpasmcli> show server
System : ProLiant DL180 G5

hpaducli -f adu
ADU Version 8.10.4.0
Diagnostic Module Version 4.9-85
Time Generated Thursday December 18, 2008 1:45:57AM
Device Summary: Smart Array E200 in slot ATTR_VALUE_SLOT_UNKNOWN
Consolidated Error Report:
Report for Smart Array E200 in slot ATTR_VALUE_SLOT_UNKNOWN
Smart Array E200 in slot ATTR_VALUE_SLOT_UNKNOWN : Identify Controller
Configured Logical Drives 2 (0x02)
Configuration Signature 0xa00872cb
RAM Firmware Revision 1.78
ROM Firmware Revision 1.78
Hardware Revision 0x00

2x HP SATA 250GB Raid 1+0
1x Maxtor 250GB no raid

Cache Ratio 50% 50%

Array Configuration Utility 8.10.2.0 : Physical Drive write cache ENABLED (really dangerous???)

Raid disks:
dd if=/dev/zero of=/root/bigfile count=10 bs=500M
10+0 records in
10+0 records out
5242880000 bytes (5.2 GB) copied, 74.0209 seconds, 70.8 MB/s

Single disk:
dd if=/dev/zero of=/backup/bigfile count=10 bs=500M
10+0 records in
10+0 records out
5242880000 bytes (5.2 GB) copied, 86.7074 seconds, 60.5 MB/s


I tried many time on different disk partition and got between 55 and 80 MB/s.
I had all your same problems, I think the difference was enabling "physical drive write cache"


any improvement appreciated, bye

[Daniele Palumbo]

i have all kind of cache enables, and i guess that most of users here tested it or phoned at HP and they told us to do that.

the simplest test is to turn on the machine, run a dd, and then make login throug ssh from another machine.

it should be REALLY slow.