On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 18:41:25 -0500,
Jim C. Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 07:20:27PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
My damn powerbook drive recently failed with very little warning, other
than I did notice that disk activity seemed to be getting a bit slower.
IIRC
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 12:10:32PM +0200, Jean-Yves F. Barbier wrote:
I myself can't see much reason to spend $500 on high end controller
cards for a simple Raid 1.
Naa, you can find ATA | SATA ctrlrs for about EUR30 !
And you're likely getting what you paid for: crap. Such a controller
2b- LARGE UPS because HDs are the components that have the higher power
consomption (a 700VA UPS gives me about 10-12 minutes on a machine
with a XP2200+, 1GB RAM and a 40GB HD, however this fall to..
less than 25 secondes with seven HDs ! all ATA),
I got my hands on a (free)
Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Douglas McNaught [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never heard of a 15kRPM SATA drive.
Well, dollar for dollar you would get the best performance from slower drives
anyways since it would give you more spindles. 15kRPM drives
Hi, Scott all,
Scott Lamb wrote:
I don't know the answer to this question, but have you seen this tool?
http://brad.livejournal.com/2116715.html
We had a simpler tool inhouse, which wrote a file byte-for-byte, and
called fsync() after every byte.
If the number of fsyncs/min is higher
Markus Schaber wrote:
Hi, Scott all,
Scott Lamb wrote:
I don't know the answer to this question, but have you seen this tool?
http://brad.livejournal.com/2116715.html
We had a simpler tool inhouse, which wrote a file byte-for-byte, and
called fsync() after every byte.
If
Hi, Bruce,
Bruce Momjian wrote:
It does not find as much liers as the script above, but it is less
Why does it find fewer liers?
It won't find liers that have a small lie-queue-length so their
internal buffers get full so they have to block. After a small burst at
start which usually hides
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 20:02, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Scott Marlowe wrote:
Actually, in the case of the Escalades at least, the answer is yes.
Last year (maybe a bit more) someone was testing an IDE escalade
controller with drives that were known to lie, and it passed the power
plug pull
Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 20:02, Bruce Momjian wrote:
You do if the controller thinks the data is already on the drives and
removes it from its cache.
Bruce, re-read what I wrote. The escalades tell the drives to TURN OFF
THEIR OWN CACHE.
Some ATA
Hi, Bruce,
Markus Schaber wrote:
It does not find as much liers as the script above, but it is less
Why does it find fewer liers?
It won't find liers that have a small lie-queue-length so their
internal buffers get full so they have to block. After a small burst at
start which usually hides
On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 09:51, Douglas McNaught wrote:
Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 20:02, Bruce Momjian wrote:
You do if the controller thinks the data is already on the drives and
removes it from its cache.
Bruce, re-read what I wrote. The escalades
Hi,
I've just had some discussion with colleagues regarding the usage of
hardware or software raid 1/10 for our linux based database servers.
I myself can't see much reason to spend $500 on high end controller
cards for a simple Raid 1.
Any arguments pro or contra would be desirable.
From
Hi Hannes,
Hannes Dorbath a écrit :
Hi,
I've just had some discussion with colleagues regarding the usage of
hardware or software raid 1/10 for our linux based database servers.
I myself can't see much reason to spend $500 on high end controller
cards for a simple Raid 1.
Naa, you can
On 09.05.2006 12:10, Jean-Yves F. Barbier wrote:
Naa, you can find ATA | SATA ctrlrs for about EUR30 !
Sure, just for my colleagues Raid Controller = IPC Vortex, which resides
in that price range.
For bi-core CPUs, it might be true
I've got that from pgsql.performance for multi-way
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 12:10:32 +0200,
Jean-Yves F. Barbier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Naa, you can find ATA | SATA ctrlrs for about EUR30 !
But those are the ones that you would generally be better off not using.
Definitely NOT, however if your server doen't have a heavy load, the
software
Don't buy those drives. That's unrelated to whether you use hardware
or software RAID.
Sorry that is an extremely misleading statement. SATA RAID is perfectly
acceptable if you have a hardware raid controller with a battery backup
controller.
And dollar for dollar, SCSI will NOT be faster
On May 9, 2006, at 8:51 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
(Using SATA drives is always a bit of risk, as some drives are lying
about whether they are caching or not.)
Don't buy those drives. That's unrelated to whether you use hardware
or software RAID.
Sorry that is an extremely misleading
On May 9, 2006, at 11:51 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Sorry that is an extremely misleading statement. SATA RAID is
perfectly acceptable if you have a hardware raid controller with a
battery backup controller.
And dollar for dollar, SCSI will NOT be faster nor have the hard
drive capacity
Vivek Khera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On May 9, 2006, at 11:51 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
And dollar for dollar, SCSI will NOT be faster nor have the hard
drive capacity that you will get with SATA.
Does this hold true still under heavy concurrent-write loads? I'm
preparing yet another
You're not suggesting that a hardware RAID controller will protect
you against drives that lie about sync, are you?
Of course not, but which drives lie about sync that are SATA? Or more
specifically SATA-II?
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command
On May 9, 2006, at 11:26 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
You're not suggesting that a hardware RAID controller will protect
you against drives that lie about sync, are you?
Of course not, but which drives lie about sync that are SATA? Or
more specifically SATA-II?
SATA-II, none that I'm
Douglas McNaught wrote:
Vivek Khera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On May 9, 2006, at 11:51 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
And dollar for dollar, SCSI will NOT be faster nor have the hard
drive capacity that you will get with SATA.
Does this hold true still under heavy concurrent-write loads? I'm
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 12:52, Steve Atkins wrote:
On May 9, 2006, at 8:51 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
(Using SATA drives is always a bit of risk, as some drives are lying
about whether they are caching or not.)
Don't buy those drives. That's unrelated to whether you use hardware
or
Scott Marlowe wrote:
Actually, in the case of the Escalades at least, the answer is yes.
Last year (maybe a bit more) someone was testing an IDE escalade
controller with drives that were known to lie, and it passed the power
plug pull test repeatedly. Apparently, the escalades tell the
On May 9, 2006, at 11:26 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Of course not, but which drives lie about sync that are SATA? Or
more specifically SATA-II?
I don't know the answer to this question, but have you seen this tool?
http://brad.livejournal.com/2116715.html
It attempts to experimentally
Douglas McNaught [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Vivek Khera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On May 9, 2006, at 11:51 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
And dollar for dollar, SCSI will NOT be faster nor have the hard
drive capacity that you will get with SATA.
Does this hold true still under heavy
Steve Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On May 9, 2006, at 2:16 AM, Hannes Dorbath wrote:
Hi,
I've just had some discussion with colleagues regarding the usage of
hardware or software raid 1/10 for our linux based database servers.
I myself can't see much reason to spend $500 on
27 matches
Mail list logo
