Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: SCSI vs SATA

From: Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing(at)tweakers(dot)net>
To: "jason(at)ohloh(dot)net" <jason(at)ohloh(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SCSI vs SATA
Date: 2007-04-04 19:38:28
Message-ID: 4613FEB4.9040303@tweakers.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On 4-4-2007 21:17 jason(at)ohloh(dot)net wrote:
> fwiw, I've had horrible experiences with areca drivers on linux. I've 
> found them to be unreliable when used with dual AMD64 processors  4+ GB 
> of ram. I've tried kernels 2.16 up to 2.19... intermittent yet 
> inevitable ext3 corruptions. 3ware cards, on the other hand, have been 
> rock solid.

That's the first time I hear such a thing. We have two systems (both are 
previous generation 64bit Xeon systems with 6 and 8GB memory) which run 
perfectly stable with uptimes with a ARC-1130 and 8 WD-raptor disks.

Best regards,

Arjen

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2007-04-04 20:27:22
Subject: Re: SCSI vs SATA
Previous:From: jason@ohloh.netDate: 2007-04-04 19:17:43
Subject: Re: SCSI vs SATA

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group