| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-04-04 20:27:22 | Re: SCSI vs SATA |
| Previous Message | jason@ohloh.net | 2007-04-04 19:17:43 | Re: SCSI vs SATA |