Re: [PERFORM] 3ware vs Areca

2008-07-20 Thread Greg Smith
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Jeffrey Baker wrote: Debian "etch", which has a 2.6.18 kernel. I have contacted Areca support (as well as the linux-scsi mailing list) and their responses are usually either 1) upgrade the driver and/or firmware even though I have the latest drivers and firmware Well, tec

Re: [PERFORM] 3ware vs Areca

2008-07-18 Thread Francisco Reyes
Jeffrey Baker writes: Their firmware is, frankly, garbage. In more than one instance we have had the card panic when a disk fails, which is obviously counter to the entire purpose of a RAID. I have had simmilar problems with 3ware 9550 and 9650 cards. Undre FreeBSD I have seen constant crashe

Re: [PERFORM] 3ware vs Areca

2008-07-15 Thread Jeffrey Baker
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:13 PM, Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Jeffrey Baker wrote: > >> Their firmware is, frankly, garbage. In more than one instance we >> have had the card panic when a disk fails, which is obviously counter >> to the entire purpose of a RAID. We

Re: [PERFORM] 3ware vs Areca

2008-07-15 Thread Greg Smith
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Jeffrey Baker wrote: But most recently in my memory we had an Areca HBA which, when one of its WD RE-2 disks failed, completely stopped responding to both the command line and the web management interface. What operating system/kernel version are you using on these system

Re: [PERFORM] 3ware vs Areca

2008-07-15 Thread Jeffrey Baker
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 8:17 AM, Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Jeffrey Baker wrote: > >> But most recently in my memory we had an Areca HBA which, when one of its >> WD RE-2 disks failed, completely stopped responding to both the command line >> and the web management

Re: [PERFORM] 3ware vs Areca

2008-07-14 Thread Greg Smith
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Jeffrey Baker wrote: Their firmware is, frankly, garbage. In more than one instance we have had the card panic when a disk fails, which is obviously counter to the entire purpose of a RAID. We finally removed the Areca controllers from our database server and replaced them

Re: [PERFORM] 3ware vs Areca

2008-07-11 Thread Greg Smith
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Jeff wrote: Yeah, it'd be fun to run more benchmarks, but the beefy box, for some reason, is a prod box busy 24/7. no time to nuke it and fidgit :) If you've got an existing array and you want to switch to another controller, that may not work without nuking no matter wh

Re: [PERFORM] 3ware vs Areca

2008-07-11 Thread Jeff
On Jul 11, 2008, at 3:21 PM, Greg Smith wrote: My last box with a 3ware I simply had it in jbod mode and used sw raid and it smoked the hw. That is often the case no matter which hardware controller you've got, particularly in more complicated RAID setups. You might want to consider that

Re: [PERFORM] 3ware vs Areca

2008-07-11 Thread Jeff
On Jul 11, 2008, at 3:39 PM, Jeffrey Baker wrote: From my experience, the Areca controllers are difficult to operate. Their firmware is, frankly, garbage. In more than one instance we have had the card panic when a disk fails, which is obviously counter to the entire purpose of a RAID. We fin

Re: [PERFORM] 3ware vs Areca

2008-07-11 Thread Jeffrey Baker
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Jeff wrote: > >> I've got a couple boxes with some 3ware 9550 controllers, and I'm less >> than pleased with performance on them.. Sequential access is nice, but start >> seeking around and you kick it in

Re: [PERFORM] 3ware vs Areca

2008-07-11 Thread Greg Smith
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Jeff wrote: I've got a couple boxes with some 3ware 9550 controllers, and I'm less than pleased with performance on them.. Sequential access is nice, but start seeking around and you kick it in the gut. (I've found posts on the internets about others having similar issues

Re: [PERFORM] 3ware vs Areca

2008-07-11 Thread Scott Marlowe
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Luke Lonergan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The Arecas are a lot faster than the 9550, more noticeable with disk counts > from 12 on up. At 8 disks you may not see much difference. > > The 3Ware 9650 is their answer to the Areca and it put the two a lot closer. Do

Re: [PERFORM] 3ware vs Areca

2008-07-11 Thread Luke Lonergan
The Arecas are a lot faster than the 9550, more noticeable with disk counts from 12 on up. At 8 disks you may not see much difference. The 3Ware 9650 is their answer to the Areca and it put the two a lot closer. FWIW ­ we got some Arecas at one point and had trouble getting them configured and w

Re: [PERFORM] 3ware vs Areca

2008-07-11 Thread Scott Marlowe
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 7:26 AM, Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've got a couple boxes with some 3ware 9550 controllers, and I'm less than > pleased with performance on them.. Sequential access is nice, but start > seeking around and you kick it in the gut. (I've found posts on the > internets

[PERFORM] 3ware vs Areca

2008-07-11 Thread Jeff
I've got a couple boxes with some 3ware 9550 controllers, and I'm less than pleased with performance on them.. Sequential access is nice, but start seeking around and you kick it in the gut. (I've found posts on the internets about others having similar issues). My last box with a 3ware I