From: | Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(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: | 2009-12-07 19:10:13 |
Message-ID: | C7429315.1A96F%scott@richrelevance.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 12/1/09 6:49 PM, "Greg Smith" <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> 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.
9650 was made by 3Ware, essentially a PCIe version of the 9550. The 9690SA
was from some sort of acquisition/merger. They are not the same product line
at all.
3Ware, IIRC, has its roots in ATA and SATA RAID.
I gave up on them after the 9650 and 9550 experiences (on Linux) though.
>
> --
> Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant Baltimore, MD
> PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
> greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com www.2ndQuadrant.com
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ben Brehmer | 2009-12-07 19:12:12 | Re: Load experimentation |
Previous Message | Scott Carey | 2009-12-07 19:04:02 | Re: RAID card recommendation |