| From: | "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff <threshar(at)torgo(dot)978(dot)org>, "Pgsql performance" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 3ware vs Areca |
| Date: | 2008-07-11 17:46:19 |
| Message-ID: | dcc563d10807111046t31bc5b32hb6a81c2156fa3132@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Luke Lonergan <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> wrote:
> The Arecas are a lot faster than the 9550, more noticeable with disk counts
> from 12 on up. At 8 disks you may not see much difference.
>
> The 3Ware 9650 is their answer to the Areca and it put the two a lot closer.
Do you mean the areca 12xx series or the newer 1680? I was under the
impression the difference in performance wasn't that big between teh
95xx 3wares and teh 12xx Arecas. We have a 1680i on order, with 16
15K RPM SAS drives. I'll let you guys know how it runs.
> FWIW – we got some Arecas at one point and had trouble getting them
> configured and working properly.
I've heard the SAS/SATA Arecas don't get along well with some SATA
drives, but generally are quite reliable on SAS. this was in a number
of forum posts on different hardware and linux sites repeated by
different folks over and over.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Smith | 2008-07-11 19:21:20 | Re: 3ware vs Areca |
| Previous Message | Karl Wright | 2008-07-11 16:59:58 | REINDEX/SELECT deadlock? |