Re: [PERFORM] software vs hw hard on linux

On Fri, 2003-09-12 at 07:34, Jeff wrote: > What I'm wondering about is what folks experience with software raid vs > hardware raid on linux is. A friend of mine ran a set of benchmarks at > work and found sw raid was running obscenely faster than the mylex and > (some other brand that isn't 3ware

Re: [PERFORM] software vs hw hard on linux

My personal experience with RAID cards is that you have to spend money to get good performance. You need battery backed cache because RAID 5 only works well with write to cache turned on, and you need a good size cache too. If you don't have it, RAID 5 performance will suck big time. If you n

Re: [PERFORM] software vs hw hard on linux

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff) writes: > On the pro-sw side you have lots of speed and less cost (unfortunately, > there is a pathetic budget so spending $15k on a raid card is out of the > question really). I have been playing with a Perq3 QC card whic

Re: [PERFORM] software vs hw hard on linux

> "J" == Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: J> Due to various third party issues, and the fact PG rules, we're planning J> on migrating our deplorable informix db to PG. It is a rather large DB J> with a rather high amount of activity (mostly updates). So I'm going to If at all possible, bat

Re: [PERFORM] software vs hw hard on linux

> "a" == aturner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: a> you need a good size cache too. If you don't have it, RAID 5 a> performance will suck big time. If you need speed, RAID 10 seems a> to be the only way to go, but of course that means you are gonna a> spend $$s on drives and chasis. I wish som

Re: [PERFORM] software vs hw hard on linux

Jeff, > What I'm wondering about is what folks experience with software raid vs > hardware raid on linux is. A friend of mine ran a set of benchmarks at > work and found sw raid was running obscenely faster than the mylex and > (some other brand that isn't 3ware) raids.. Our company has stopped