From: | Karl Denninger <karl(at)denninger(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com> |
Cc: | Denis Lussier <denis(dot)lussier(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "david(at)lang(dot)hm" <david(at)lang(dot)hm>, S Arvind <arvindwill(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Best suiting OS |
Date: | 2009-10-05 18:15:44 |
Message-ID: | 4ACA37D0.8060406@denninger.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Scott Carey wrote:
>
> On 10/5/09 10:27 AM, "Karl Denninger" <karl(at)denninger(dot)net> 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
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
karl.vcf | text/x-vcard | 124 bytes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Smith | 2009-10-05 18:20:07 | Re: Best suiting OS |
Previous Message | Karl Denninger | 2009-10-05 18:06:18 | Re: Best suiting OS |