On 10/5/09 11:15 AM, "Karl Denninger" <k...@denninger.net> wrote:
> Scott Carey wrote: >> >> On 10/5/09 10:27 AM, "Karl Denninger" <k...@denninger.net> wrote: >> >> >>> I don't run the 3x series 3ware boards. If I recall correctly they're not >>> true coprocessor boards and rely on the host CPU. Those are always going to >>> be a lose compared to a true coprocessor with dedicated cache memory on the >>> card. >>> >> I screwed up, it was the 95xx and 96xx that stink for me. (Adaptec 2x as >> fast, PERC 6 25% faster) with 1TB SATA drives. >> >> Thought 96xx was a good chunk faster due to the faster interface. >> > I'm running the 9650s in most of my "busier" machines. Haven't tried a > PERC card yet - its on my list. Most of my stuff is configured as RAID > 1 although I have a couple of RAID 10 arrays in service; depending on > the data set and how it splits up I prefer to have more control of how > I/O is partitioned rather than let the controller pick through striping. > > I don't think I have any of the 95xx stuff out in the wild at present; > it didn't do particularly well in my testing in terms of performance. > > -- Karl > Let me make sure I clarify here -- The 3ware 9[56]xx issues I have seen were with throughput on larger RAID array sizes -- 8+ disks total. On smaller arrays, I have not tested. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
