Scott Carey wrote: > > On 10/5/09 10:27 AM, "Karl Denninger" <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> I don't run the 3x series 3ware boards. If I recall correctly they're not >> true coprocessor boards and rely on the host CPU. Those are always going to >> be a lose compared to a true coprocessor with dedicated cache memory on the >> card. >> > I screwed up, it was the 95xx and 96xx that stink for me. (Adaptec 2x as > fast, PERC 6 25% faster) with 1TB SATA drives. > > Thought 96xx was a good chunk faster due to the faster interface. > I'm running the 9650s in most of my "busier" machines. Haven't tried a PERC card yet - its on my list. Most of my stuff is configured as RAID 1 although I have a couple of RAID 10 arrays in service; depending on the data set and how it splits up I prefer to have more control of how I/O is partitioned rather than let the controller pick through striping. I don't think I have any of the 95xx stuff out in the wild at present; it didn't do particularly well in my testing in terms of performance. -- Karl
begin:vcard fn:Karl Denninger n:Denninger;Karl email;internet:karl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx x-mozilla-html:TRUE version:2.1 end:vcard
-- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
