> "RJ" == Richard Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
RJ> Hi, i'm on the verge of buying a "MegaRAID SCSI 320-2" raid controller.
RJ> I need it to build a db server using 4x ultra320 scsi disks
RJ> i'm thinking raid 1+0 but will try with raid5 too and compare
No specific tips on that particular
> "PG" == Palle Girgensohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
PG> Come to think of it, I guess a battery-backed cache will make fsync as
PG> fast as no fsync, right? So, the q was kinda stoopid... :-/
In my testing, yes, the battery cache makes fsync=true just about as
fast as fsync=false. it was o
\Palle Girgensohn wrote:
> Come to think of it, I guess a battery-backed cache will make fsync as fast
> as no fsync, right? So, the q was kinda stoopid... :-/
With fsync off, the data might never get to the battery-backed RAM. :-(
--
Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha
r 2003 22:32
> To: Matt Clark; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] advice on raid controller
>
>
> Stupid question, perhaps, but would a battery-backed cache make
> it safe to
> set fsync=false in postgresql.conf?
>
> /Palle
>
> --On
Come to think of it, I guess a battery-backed cache will make fsync as fast
as no fsync, right? So, the q was kinda stoopid... :-/
/Palle
--On måndag, september 29, 2003 23.31.54 +0200 Palle Girgensohn
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Stupid question, perhaps, but would a battery-backed cache make i
Stupid question, perhaps, but would a battery-backed cache make it safe to
set fsync=false in postgresql.conf?
/Palle
--On söndag, september 28, 2003 13.07.57 +0100 Matt Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
As others have mentioned, you really ought to get battery-backed cache if
you're doing any
On 29 Sep 2003, Will LaShell wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 06:48, scott.marlowe wrote:
> > I've used the megaraid / LSI cards in the past and they were pretty good
> > in terms of reliability, but the last one I used was the 328 model, from 4
> > years ago or so. that one had a battery backup
On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 06:48, scott.marlowe wrote:
> I've used the megaraid / LSI cards in the past and they were pretty good
> in terms of reliability, but the last one I used was the 328 model, from 4
> years ago or so. that one had a battery backup option for the cache, and
> could go to 128
I've used the megaraid / LSI cards in the past and they were pretty good
in terms of reliability, but the last one I used was the 328 model, from 4
years ago or so. that one had a battery backup option for the cache, and
could go to 128 Meg. We tested it with 4/16 and 128 meg ram, and it was
As others have mentioned, you really ought to get battery-backed cache if
you're doing any volume of writes. The ability to do safe write-back
caching makes an *insane* difference to write performance.
The site you link to also has that for only 15% more money:
http://uk.azzurri.com/product/produ
RIchard,
> Hi, i'm on the verge of buying a "MegaRAID SCSI 320-2" raid controller.
> I need it to build a db server using 4x ultra320 scsi disks
> i'm thinking raid 1+0 but will try with raid5 too and compare
Depends on your type of database. If you're doing web or OLAP (lots of
read-only queri
On Sat, 2003-09-27 at 12:24, Richard Jones wrote:
> Hi, i'm on the verge of buying a "MegaRAID SCSI 320-2" raid controller.
> I need it to build a db server using 4x ultra320 scsi disks
> i'm thinking raid 1+0 but will try with raid5 too and compare
>
> Does anyone have any experience with this mo
On 2003-09-27T18:24:33+0100, Richard Jones wrote:
> i'm on the verge of buying a "MegaRAID SCSI 320-2" raid controller.
You may want to check out the PCI-X version of this controller that
LSILogic just released (MegaRAID SCSI 320-2X). PCI-X is backwards
compatible with PCI, but also gives you gre
13 matches
Mail list logo
