On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, Greg Smith wrote:
I'd be interested in recommendations for RAID cards for small SATA systems.
It's not anything to do with Postgres - I'm just intending to set up a
little four-drive array for my home computer, with cheap 1TB SATA drives.
Then why are you thinking of RAID
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 5:29 AM, Mario Weilguni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aidan Van Dyk schrieb:
* Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] [081209 11:01]:
Yes the SmartArray series is quite common and actually know to perform
reasonably well, in RAID 10. You still appear to be trying RAID 5.
Aidan Van Dyk schrieb:
* Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] [081209 11:01]:
Yes the SmartArray series is quite common and actually know to perform
reasonably well, in RAID 10. You still appear to be trying RAID 5.
*boggle*
Are people *still* using raid5?
/me gives up!
Why
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 12:45 AM, Mario Weilguni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A customer of us uses the P400 on a different machine, 8 SAS drives (Raid 5
as well), and the performance is very, very good. So we thought it's a good
choice. Maybe the SATA drives are the root of this problem?
What
Scott Marlowe schrieb:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 12:45 AM, Mario Weilguni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A customer of us uses the P400 on a different machine, 8 SAS drives (Raid 5
as well), and the performance is very, very good. So we thought it's a good
choice. Maybe the SATA drives are the root
Marlowe; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Experience with HP Smart Array P400 and SATA drives?
Aidan Van Dyk schrieb:
* Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] [081209 11:01]:
Yes the SmartArray series is quite common and actually know to perform
reasonably well, in RAID 10
* Mario Weilguni [EMAIL PROTECTED] [081210 07:31]:
Why not? I know it's not performing as good as RAID-10, but it does not
waste 50% diskspace. RAID-6 is no option, because the performance is
even worse. And, on another system with RAID-5 + spare and SAS drives,
the same controller is
Aidan Van Dyk schrieb:
* Mario Weilguni [EMAIL PROTECTED] [081210 07:31]:
Why not? I know it's not performing as good as RAID-10, but it does not
waste 50% diskspace. RAID-6 is no option, because the performance is
even worse. And, on another system with RAID-5 + spare and SAS drives,
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Mario Weilguni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In fact, for this system we're currently going to RAID10, I'm convinced now.
With other systems we have, RAID5 is a safe option for one reason, the
machines are clusters, so we have (sort of) RAID50 here:
Machine A/RAID5
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, Scott Marlowe wrote:
Or, if you don't have time to mess with it, just order an escalade or
areca card and be done with it. :)
I'd be interested in recommendations for RAID cards for small SATA
systems. It's not anything to do with Postgres - I'm just intending to set
up
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, Matthew Wakeling wrote:
I'd be interested in recommendations for RAID cards for small SATA systems.
It's not anything to do with Postgres - I'm just intending to set up a little
four-drive array for my home computer, with cheap 1TB SATA drives.
Then why are you thinking
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, Matthew Wakeling wrote:
I'd be interested in recommendations for RAID cards for small SATA
systems. It's not anything to do with Postgres - I'm just intending to set
up a little four-drive array for my
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3ware 9650SE-4LPML is what I'd buy today if I wanted hardware SATA RAID.
FWIW, I just put together a system with exactly that (4 320g drives in
raid 10) and have been pleased with the results. I won't have any
downtime to be
Scott Marlowe schrieb:
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:22 AM, Mario Weilguni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has anyone benchmarked this controller (PCIe/4x, 512 MB BBC)? We try to use
it with 8x SATA 1TB drives in RAID-5 mode under Linux, and measure strange
values. An individual drive is capable of
Kevin Grittner schrieb:
Mario Weilguni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has anyone benchmarked this controller (PCIe/4x, 512 MB BBC)? We try
to
use it with 8x SATA 1TB drives in RAID-5 mode under Linux, and
measure
strange values. An individual drive is capable of
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 5:17 AM, Mario Weilguni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alan Hodgson schrieb:
Mario Weilguni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
strange values. An individual drive is capable of delivering 91
MB/sec
sequential read performance, and we get values ~102MB/sec out of a
8-drive
On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 13:10 +0100, Mario Weilguni wrote:
Scott Marlowe schrieb:
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:22 AM, Mario Weilguni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still think we must be doing something wrong here, I googled the
controller and Linux, and did not find anything indicating a problem.
We reached a fairly good performance on a P400 controller (8 SATA 146GB
2,5 10k rpm) with raid5 or raid6 Linux software raid: the writing
bandwidth reached about 140 MB/s sustained throughput (the hardware
raid5 gave a sustained 20 MB/s...). With a second, equal controller (16
disks) we
* Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] [081209 11:01]:
Yes the SmartArray series is quite common and actually know to perform
reasonably well, in RAID 10. You still appear to be trying RAID 5.
*boggle*
Are people *still* using raid5?
/me gives up!
--
Aidan Van Dyk
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Gabriele Turchi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We reached a fairly good performance on a P400 controller (8 SATA 146GB 2,5
10k rpm) with raid5 or raid6 Linux software raid: the writing bandwidth
reached about 140 MB/s sustained throughput (the hardware raid5 gave a
Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
* Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] [081209 11:01]:
Yes the SmartArray series is quite common and actually know to perform
reasonably well, in RAID 10. You still appear to be trying RAID 5.
*boggle*
Are people *still* using raid5?
/me gives up!
What do you suggest
* Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] [081209 11:28]:
What do you suggest when there is not enough room for a RAID 10?
More disks ;-)
But if you've given up on performance and reliability in favour of
cheaper storage, I guess raid5 is ok. But then I'm not sure what the
point of asking about
On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 18:27 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
* Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] [081209 11:01]:
Yes the SmartArray series is quite common and actually know to perform
reasonably well, in RAID 10. You still appear to be trying RAID 5.
*boggle*
On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 09:25 -0700, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Gabriele Turchi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We reached a fairly good performance on a P400 controller (8 SATA 146GB 2,5
10k rpm) with raid5 or raid6 Linux software raid: the writing bandwidth
reached about
Scott Marlowe schrieb:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 5:17 AM, Mario Weilguni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alan Hodgson schrieb:
Mario Weilguni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
strange values. An individual drive is capable of delivering 91
MB/sec
sequential read performance, and we
It could be the drives, it could be a particular interaction between them and
the drivers or firmware.
Do you know if NCQ is activated for them?
Can you test a single drive JBOD through the array to the same drive through
something else, perhaps the motherboard's SATA port?
You may also have
Mario Weilguni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has anyone benchmarked this controller (PCIe/4x, 512 MB BBC)? We try
to
use it with 8x SATA 1TB drives in RAID-5 mode under Linux, and
measure
strange values. An individual drive is capable of delivering 91
MB/sec
sequential read performance, and we
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:22 AM, Mario Weilguni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has anyone benchmarked this controller (PCIe/4x, 512 MB BBC)? We try to use
it with 8x SATA 1TB drives in RAID-5 mode under Linux, and measure strange
values. An individual drive is capable of delivering 91 MB/sec
Mario Weilguni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
strange values. An individual drive is capable of delivering 91
MB/sec
sequential read performance, and we get values ~102MB/sec out of a
8-drive RAID5, seems to be ridiculous slow.
What command are you using to test the reads?
Some
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008, Alan Hodgson wrote:
1) /sbin/blockdev --setra 2048 device (where device is the partition or
LVM volume)
Normally, when I see write speed dramatically faster than write, it does
mean that something about the read-ahead is set wrong. While I don't have
one to check, it
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
XFS has good performance, but I can't get over how many system failure
corruption reports I hear about it. In any case, there's no reason this
system shouldn't perform fine on ext3.
For simple testing you can take the file
Has anyone benchmarked this controller (PCIe/4x, 512 MB BBC)? We try to
use it with 8x SATA 1TB drives in RAID-5 mode under Linux, and measure
strange values. An individual drive is capable of delivering 91 MB/sec
sequential read performance, and we get values ~102MB/sec out of a
8-drive
32 matches
Mail list logo
