From: | "Alex Turner" <armtuk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Guy Rouillier" <guyr(at)masergy(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Hardware related question: 3ware 9500S |
Date: | 2006-04-16 02:38:25 |
Message-ID: | 33c6269f0604151938q5ec97683wa24d620fe55e02e2@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Ahhhh... good point.
Why oh why does tyan have two boards with the same prefix ;)!!!
Alex
On 4/15/06, Guy Rouillier <guyr(at)masergy(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Alex Turner wrote:
> > Raid 5 on the 9550SX is supposed to be significantly better than the
> > 9500 series.
> >
> > I would be carefull of benchmarks listed out there. For instance,
> > whilst looking for supporting material, I came cross this gem:
> >
> http://www.gamepc.com/labs/print_content.asp?id=9550sx4lp&cookie%5Ftest=
> 1
> >
> > They claim the they used a Tyan Thunder K8WE motherboard, and
> > installed the RAID controllers in a 64-bit 133MHz PCI-X slot. This
> > motherboard doesn't have any 64-bit 133Mhz PCI-X slots! (
> > http://www.tyan.com/products/html/tigerk8we_spec.html)
> > It's no wonder that the other raid controllers showed significantly
> > less performance than the PCI-e card.
>
> You're looking at the wrong board. They are talking about the Tyan
> *Thunder*, which does indeed have 64-bit PCI-X. You are looking at the
> Tyan **Tiger**, which does not.
>
> --
> Guy Rouillier
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Yeye | 2006-04-16 02:49:37 | Help about physical page layout in PostgreSQL: |
Previous Message | Alex Turner | 2006-04-16 02:38:06 | Re: Hardware related question: 3ware 9500S |