Re: SCSI vs SATA

From: "jason(at)ohloh(dot)net" <jason(at)ohloh(dot)net>
To: Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing(at)tweakers(dot)net>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SCSI vs SATA
Date: 2007-04-04 19:17:43
Message-ID: 74022AFF-0CB6-421C-B2D7-2A88A93C9604@ohloh.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance


On Apr 4, 2007, at 12:09 PM, Arjen van der Meijden wrote:

> If you don't care about such things, it may actually be possible to
> build a similar set-up as your SATA-system with 12 or 16 15k rpm
> SAS disks or 10k WD Raptor disks. For the sata-solution you can
> also consider a 24-port Areca card.

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.

-jay

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Arjen van der Meijden 2007-04-04 19:38:28 Re: SCSI vs SATA
Previous Message Arjen van der Meijden 2007-04-04 19:09:16 Re: SCSI vs SATA