[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Greg,
>
> I posted this link under a different thread (the $7k server thread). It is
> a very good read on why SCSI is better for servers than ATA. I didn't note
> bias, though it is from a drive manufacturer. YMMV. There is an
> interesting, though dated appendix on
Alex Turner wrote:
No offense to that review, but it was really wasn't that good, and
drew bad conclusions from the data. I posted it originaly and
immediately regretted it.
See http://www.tweakers.net/reviews/557/18
Amazingly the controller with 1Gig cache manages a write throughput of
750MB/sec
I stand corrected!
Maybe I should re-evaluate our own config!
Alex T
(The dell PERC controllers do pretty much suck on linux)
On 4/15/05, Vivek Khera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Apr 15, 2005, at 11:01 AM, Alex Turner wrote:
>
> > You can't fit a 15k RPM SCSI solution into $7K ;) Some o
On Apr 15, 2005, at 11:01 AM, Alex Turner wrote:
You can't fit a 15k RPM SCSI solution into $7K ;) Some of us are on a
budget!
I just bought a pair of Dual Opteron, 4GB RAM, LSI 320-2X RAID dual
channel with 8 36GB 15kRPM seagate drives. Each one of these boxes set
me back just over $7k, incl
x Turner
> netEconomist
>
> On 4/15/05, Dave Held <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Alex Turner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 6:15 PM
> > > To: Dave Held
> > > Cc: pgsql-perform
> -Original Message-
> From: Alex Turner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 9:44 AM
> To: Marinos Yannikos
> Cc: Joshua D. Drake; Mohan, Ross; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Intel SRCS16 SATA raid?
>
> No offense to
gt; wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Alex Turner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 6:15 PM
> > To: Dave Held
> > Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> > Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Intel SRCS16 SATA raid?
> >
> > Looking
No offense to that review, but it was really wasn't that good, and
drew bad conclusions from the data. I posted it originaly and
immediately regretted it.
See http://www.tweakers.net/reviews/557/18
Amazingly the controller with 1Gig cache manages a write throughput of
750MB/sec on a single drive
> From: Alex Turner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 6:15 PM
> > To: Dave Held
> > Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> > Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Intel SRCS16 SATA raid?
> >
> > Looking at the numbers, the raptor with TCQ enabled was clo
> -Original Message-
> From: Alex Turner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 6:15 PM
> To: Dave Held
> Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Intel SRCS16 SATA raid?
>
> Looking at the numbers, the raptor with TCQ ena
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Well I have never even heard of it. 3ware is the defacto authority of
reasonable SATA RAID.
no! 3ware was rather early in this business, but there are plenty of
(IMHO, and some other people's opinion) better alternatives available.
3ware has good Linux drivers, but the pe
Alex Turner wrote:
Looking at the numbers, the raptor with TCQ enabled was close or beat
the Atlas III 10k drive on most benchmarks.
Naturaly a 15k drive is going to be faster in many areas, but it is
also much more expensive. It was only 44% better on the server tests
than the raptor with TCQ, bu
g Stark; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org;
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Intel SRCS16 SATA raid?
> >
> >
> > I have put together a little head to head performance of a 15k SCSI,
> > 10k SCSI 10K SATA w/TCQ, 10K SATA wo/TCQ and 7.2K SATA drive
> &
t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Alex Turner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 12:14 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Cc: Greg Stark; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org;
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
&g
Our vendor is trying to sell us on an Intel SRCS16 SATA raid controller instead of the 3ware one.
Well I have never even heard of it. 3ware is the defacto authority of
reasonable SATA RAID. If you were to
go with a different brand I would go with LSI. The LSI 150-6 is a nice
card with a batt
Nice research Alex.
Your data strongly support the information in the paper. Your SCSI drives
blew away the others in all of the server benchmarks. They're only
marginally better in desktop use.
I do find it somewhat amazing that a 15K SCSI 320 drive isn't going to help
me play Unreal Tournamen
> -Original Message-
> From: Alex Turner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 12:14 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Greg Stark; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Intel SRCS16 SATA raid?
>
>
>
I have put together a little head to head performance of a 15k SCSI,
10k SCSI 10K SATA w/TCQ, 10K SATA wo/TCQ and 7.2K SATA drive
comparison at storage review
http://www.storagereview.com/php/benchmark/compare_rtg_2001.php?typeID=10&testbedID=3&osID=4&raidconfigID=1&numDrives=1&devID_0=232&devID_1
I have read a large chunk of this, and I would highly recommend it to
anyone who has been participating in the drive discussions. It is
most informative!!
Alex Turner
netEconomist
On 4/14/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greg,
>
> I posted this link under a different thread (t
Greg,
I posted this link under a different thread (the $7k server thread). It is
a very good read on why SCSI is better for servers than ATA. I didn't note
bias, though it is from a drive manufacturer. YMMV. There is an
interesting, though dated appendix on different manufacturers' drive
chara
sorry, don't remember whether it's SCSI or SATA II, but IIRC
the Areca controllers are just stellar for things.
If you do get SATA for db stuff..especially multiuser...i still
haven't seen anything to indicate an across-the-board primacy
for SATA over SCSI. I'd go w/SCSI, or if SATA for $$$ reaso
21 matches
Mail list logo
