On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 18:41:25 -0500,
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 07:20:27PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> My damn powerbook drive recently failed with very little warning, other
> than I did notice that disk activity seemed to be getting a bit slower.
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 12:10:32PM +0200, Jean-Yves F. Barbier wrote:
> > I myself can't see much reason to spend $500 on high end controller
> > cards for a simple Raid 1.
>
> Naa, you can find ATA &| SATA ctrlrs for about EUR30 !
And you're likely getting what you paid for: crap. Such a contro
On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 09:51, Douglas McNaught wrote:
> Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 20:02, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >> You do if the controller thinks the data is already on the drives and
> >> removes it from its cache.
> >
> > Bruce, re-read what I wrote
Hi, Bruce,
Markus Schaber wrote:
>>>It does not find as much liers as the script above, but it is less
>>Why does it find fewer liers?
>
> It won't find liers that have a small "lie-queue-length" so their
> internal buffers get full so they have to block. After a small burst at
> start which usu
Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 20:02, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> You do if the controller thinks the data is already on the drives and
>> removes it from its cache.
>
> Bruce, re-read what I wrote. The escalades tell the drives to TURN OFF
> THEIR OWN CACHE.
Some
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 20:02, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > Actually, in the case of the Escalades at least, the answer is yes.
> > Last year (maybe a bit more) someone was testing an IDE escalade
> > controller with drives that were known to lie, and it passed the power
> > plug
Hi, Bruce,
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>It does not find as much liers as the script above, but it is less
>
> Why does it find fewer liers?
It won't find liers that have a small "lie-queue-length" so their
internal buffers get full so they have to block. After a small burst at
start which usually h
Vivek Khera wrote:
>
> On May 10, 2006, at 12:41 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
>
> > Well, dollar for dollar you would get the best performance from
> > slower drives
> > anyways since it would give you more spindles. 15kRPM drives are
> > *expensive*.
>
> Personally, I don't care that much for "dol
On May 10, 2006, at 12:41 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
Well, dollar for dollar you would get the best performance from
slower drives
anyways since it would give you more spindles. 15kRPM drives are
*expensive*.
Personally, I don't care that much for "dollar for dollar" I just
need performance.
Markus Schaber wrote:
> Hi, Scott & all,
>
> Scott Lamb wrote:
>
> > I don't know the answer to this question, but have you seen this tool?
> >
> > http://brad.livejournal.com/2116715.html
>
> We had a simpler tool inhouse, which wrote a file byte-for-byte, and
> called fsync() after every
Hi, Scott & all,
Scott Lamb wrote:
> I don't know the answer to this question, but have you seen this tool?
>
> http://brad.livejournal.com/2116715.html
We had a simpler tool inhouse, which wrote a file byte-for-byte, and
called fsync() after every byte.
If the number of fsyncs/min is high
Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Douglas McNaught <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never heard of a 15kRPM SATA drive.
>
> Well, dollar for dollar you would get the best performance from slower drives
> anyways since it would give you more spindles. 15kRPM
2b- LARGE UPS because HDs are the components that have the higher power
consomption (a 700VA UPS gives me about 10-12 minutes on a machine
with a XP2200+, 1GB RAM and a 40GB HD, however this fall to..
less than 25 secondes with seven HDs ! all ATA),
I got my hands on a (free)
Steve Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On May 9, 2006, at 2:16 AM, Hannes Dorbath wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've just had some discussion with colleagues regarding the usage of
> > hardware or software raid 1/10 for our linux based database servers.
> >
> > I myself can't see much reason to
Douglas McNaught <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Vivek Khera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On May 9, 2006, at 11:51 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >
> >> And dollar for dollar, SCSI will NOT be faster nor have the hard
> >> drive capacity that you will get with SATA.
> >
> > Does this hold true s
On May 9, 2006, at 11:26 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Of course not, but which drives lie about sync that are SATA? Or
more specifically SATA-II?
I don't know the answer to this question, but have you seen this tool?
http://brad.livejournal.com/2116715.html
It attempts to experimentally de
Hi Hannes,
Hannes Dorbath a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I've just had some discussion with colleagues regarding the usage of
> hardware or software raid 1/10 for our linux based database servers.
>
> I myself can't see much reason to spend $500 on high end controller
> cards for a simple Raid 1.
Naa, you
Scott Marlowe wrote:
> Actually, in the case of the Escalades at least, the answer is yes.
> Last year (maybe a bit more) someone was testing an IDE escalade
> controller with drives that were known to lie, and it passed the power
> plug pull test repeatedly. Apparently, the escalades tell the dr
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 12:52, Steve Atkins wrote:
> On May 9, 2006, at 8:51 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> ("Using SATA drives is always a bit of risk, as some drives are lying
> about whether they are caching or not.")
>
> >> Don't buy those drives. That's unrelated to whether you use hardware
Douglas McNaught wrote:
Vivek Khera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On May 9, 2006, at 11:51 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
And dollar for dollar, SCSI will NOT be faster nor have the hard
drive capacity that you will get with SATA.
Does this hold true still under heavy concurrent-write loads? I'm
On May 9, 2006, at 11:26 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
You're not suggesting that a hardware RAID controller will protect
you against drives that lie about sync, are you?
Of course not, but which drives lie about sync that are SATA? Or
more specifically SATA-II?
SATA-II, none that I'm awar
You're not suggesting that a hardware RAID controller will protect
you against drives that lie about sync, are you?
Of course not, but which drives lie about sync that are SATA? Or more
specifically SATA-II?
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command P
Vivek Khera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On May 9, 2006, at 11:51 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>> And dollar for dollar, SCSI will NOT be faster nor have the hard
>> drive capacity that you will get with SATA.
>
> Does this hold true still under heavy concurrent-write loads? I'm
> preparing yet
On May 9, 2006, at 8:51 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
("Using SATA drives is always a bit of risk, as some drives are lying
about whether they are caching or not.")
Don't buy those drives. That's unrelated to whether you use hardware
or software RAID.
Sorry that is an extremely misleading st
Don't buy those drives. That's unrelated to whether you use hardware
or software RAID.
Sorry that is an extremely misleading statement. SATA RAID is perfectly
acceptable if you have a hardware raid controller with a battery backup
controller.
And dollar for dollar, SCSI will NOT be faster n
On May 9, 2006, at 2:16 AM, Hannes Dorbath wrote:
Hi,
I've just had some discussion with colleagues regarding the usage
of hardware or software raid 1/10 for our linux based database
servers.
I myself can't see much reason to spend $500 on high end controller
cards for a simple Raid 1.
26 matches
Mail list logo