You _ARE_ kidding right? In what hallucination?
The performance numbers for the 1GB cache version of the Areca 1160
are the _grey_ line in the figures, and were added after the original
article was published:
"Note: Since the original Dutch article was published in late
January, we have finished tests of the 16-port Areca ARC-1160 using
128MB, 512MB and 1GB cache configurations and RAID 5 arrays of up to
12 drives. The ARC-1160 was using the latest 1.35 beta firmware. The
performance graphs have been updated to include the ARC-1160 results.
Discussions of the results have not been updated, however. "
With 1GB of cache, the 1160's beat everything else in almost all of
the tests they participated in. For the few where they do not win
hands down, the Escalade's (very occasionally) essentially tie.
These are very easy to read full color graphs where higher is better
and the grey line representing the 1GB 1160's is almost always higher
on the graph than anything else. Granted the Escalades seem to give
them the overall best run for their money, but they still are clearly
second best when looking at all the graphs and the CPU utilization
numbers in aggregate.
Ron
At 12:08 PM 11/16/2005, Alex Turner wrote:
Yes - that very benchmark shows that for a MySQL Datadrive in RAID 10,
the 3ware controllers beat the Areca card.
Alex.
On 11/16/05, Ron <rjpeace@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Got some hard numbers to back your statement up? IME, the Areca
> 1160's with >= 1GB of cache beat any other commodity RAID
> controller. This seems to be in agreement with at least one
> independent testing source:
>
> http://print.tweakers.net/?reviews/557
>
> RAID HW from Xyratex, Engino, or Dot Hill will _destroy_ any
> commodity HW solution, but their price point is considerably higher.
>
> ...on another note, I completely agree with the poster who says we
> need more cache on RAID controllers. We should all be beating on the
> RAID HW manufacturers to use standard DIMMs for their caches and to
> provide 2 standard DIMM slots in their full height cards (allowing
> for up to 8GB of cache using 2 4GB DIMMs as of this writing).
>
> It should also be noted that 64 drive chassis' are going to become
> possible once 2.5" 10Krpm SATA II and FC HDs become the standard next
> year (48's are the TOTL now). We need controller technology to keep up.
>
> Ron
>
> At 12:16 AM 11/16/2005, Alex Turner wrote:
> >Not at random access in RAID 10 they aren't, and anyone with their
> >head screwed on right is using RAID 10. The 9500S will still beat the
> >Areca cards at RAID 10 database access patern.
> >
> >Alex.
> >
> >On 11/15/05, Dave Cramer <pg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Luke,
> > >
> > > Have you tried the areca cards, they are slightly faster yet.
> > >
> > > Dave
> > >
> > > On 15-Nov-05, at 7:09 AM, Luke Lonergan wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I agree - you can get a very good one from www.acmemicro.com or
> > >
> > > www.rackable.com with 8x 400GB SATA disks and the new 3Ware 9550SX SATA
> > >
> > > RAID controller for about $6K with two Opteron 272 CPUs and 8GB of RAM
> > >
> > > on a Tyan 2882 motherboard. We get about 400MB/s sustained disk read
> > >
> > > performance on these (with tuning) on Linux using the xfs filesystem,
> > >
> > > which is one of the most critical factors for large databases.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Note that you want to have your DBMS use all of the CPU and
disk channel
> > >
> > > bandwidth you have on each query, which takes a parallel database like
> > >
> > > Bizgres MPP to achieve.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> >
> >---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> >TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
>
>
>
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
