| From: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: RAID card recommendation |
| Date: | 2009-12-02 02:49:40 |
| Message-ID: | 4B15D5C4.5040604@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Scott Carey wrote:
> 3ware 95xx and 96xx had performance somewhere between PERC 5 (horrid) and
> PERC 6 (mediocre) when I tested them with large SATA drives with RAID 10.
> Haven't tried raid 6 or 5. Haven't tried the "SA" model that supports SAS
The only models I've tested and recommended lately are exactly those
though. The 9690SA is the earliest 3ware card I've mentioned as seeming
to have reasonable performance. The 95XX cards are certainly much
slower than similar models from, say, Areca. I've never had one of the
earlier 96XX models to test. Now you've got me wondering what the
difference between the earlier and current 96XX models really is.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Neill | 2009-12-02 05:42:59 | Re: Order by (for 15 rows) adds 30 seconds to query time |
| Previous Message | Karl Denninger | 2009-12-02 02:08:53 | Re: RAID card recommendation |