Re: Best suiting OS

On 10/5/09 11:15 AM, "Karl Denninger" <karl(at)denninger(dot)net> wrote:

> Scott Carey wrote:
>>
>> On 10/5/09 10:27 AM, "Karl Denninger" <karl(at)denninger(dot)net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I don't run the 3x series 3ware boards. If I recall correctly they're not
>>> true coprocessor boards and rely on the host CPU. Those are always going to
>>> be a lose compared to a true coprocessor with dedicated cache memory on the
>>> card.
>>>
>> I screwed up, it was the 95xx and 96xx that stink for me. (Adaptec 2x as
>> fast, PERC 6 25% faster) with 1TB SATA drives.
>>
>> Thought 96xx was a good chunk faster due to the faster interface.
>>
> I'm running the 9650s in most of my "busier" machines. Haven't tried a
> PERC card yet - its on my list. Most of my stuff is configured as RAID
> 1 although I have a couple of RAID 10 arrays in service; depending on
> the data set and how it splits up I prefer to have more control of how
> I/O is partitioned rather than let the controller pick through striping.
>
> I don't think I have any of the 95xx stuff out in the wild at present;
> it didn't do particularly well in my testing in terms of performance.
>
> -- Karl
>
Let me make sure I clarify here --

The 3ware 9[56]xx issues I have seen were with throughput on larger RAID
array sizes -- 8+ disks total. On smaller arrays, I have not tested.