On 12/1/09 6:08 PM, "Karl Denninger" <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Scott Carey wrote: >> >> On 11/24/09 11:13 AM, "Scott Marlowe" <scott.marlowe@xxxxxxxxx> >> <mailto:scott.marlowe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >> >>> >>> They get good reviews as well. Both manufacturers have their "star" >>> performers, and their "utility" or work group class controllers. For >>> what you're doing the areca 12xx or 3ware 95xx series should do fine. >>> >>> >> >> >> -1 to 3ware's SATA solutions >> >> 3ware 95xx and 96xx had performance somewhere between PERC 5 (horrid) and >> PERC 6 (mediocre) when I tested them with large SATA drives with RAID 10. >> Haven't tried raid 6 or 5. Haven't tried the "SA" model that supports SAS. >> When a competing card (Areca or Adaptec) gets 3x the sequential throughput >> on an 8 disk RAID 10 and only catches up to be 60% the speed after heavy >> tuning of readahead value, there's something wrong. >> Random access throughput doesn't suffer like that however -- but its nice >> when the I/O can sequential scan faser than postgres can read the tuples. >> > What operating system? > > I am running under FreeBSD with 96xx series and am getting EXCELLENT > performance. Under Postgres 8.4.x on identical hardware except for the disk > controller, I am pulling a literal 3x the iops on the same disks that I do > with the Adaptec (!) > > I DID note that under Linux the same hardware was a slug. > > Hmmmmm... > Linux, Centos 5.3. Drivers/OS can certainly make a big difference. > > -- Karl > -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
