Matt Burke wrote: > Scott Carey wrote: > > You probably don?t want a single array with more than 32 drives anyway, > > its almost always better to start carving out chunks and using software > > raid 0 or 1 on top of that for various reasons. I wouldn?t put more than > > 16 drives in one array on any of these RAID cards, they?re just not > > optimized for really big arrays and tend to fade between 6 to 16 in one > > array, depending on the quality. > > This is what I'm looking at now. The server I'm working on at the moment > currently has a PERC6/e and 3xMD1000s which needs to be tested in a few > setups. I need to code a benchmarker yet (I haven't found one yet that > can come close to replicating our DB usage patterns), but I intend to try: Stupid question, but why do people bother with the Perc line of cards if the LSI brand is better? It seems the headache of trying to get the Perc cards to perform is not worth any money saved. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@xxxxxxxxxx> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
