Re: [PERFORM] Advice on RAID card

within the next 18months than you will "save" in initial acquisition cost. Ron -Original Message- From: PFC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sep 24, 2005 12:27 PM Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Advice on RAID card It looks like a rebranded low end Adaptec 64MB PCI-X <-&g

Re: [PERFORM] Advice on RAID card

"save" in initial acquisition cost. Ron -Original Message- From: PFC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sep 24, 2005 12:27 PM Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Advice on RAID card > It looks like a rebranded low end Adaptec 64MB PCI-X <-> SATA RAID card. > Looks like the

Re: [PERFORM] Advice on RAID card

[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Joshua D. Drake") writes: > There is a huge advantage to software raid on all kinds of > levels. If you have the CPU then I suggest it. However you will > never get the performance out of software raid on the high level > (think 1 gig of cache) that you would on a software raid

Re: [PERFORM] Advice on RAID card

On Sun, Sep 25, 2005 at 06:53:57PM +0200, PFC wrote: > Gonna investigate now if Linux software RAID5 is rugged enough. Can > always buy the a card later if not. Note that 2.6.13 and 2.6.14 have several improvements to the software RAID code, some with regard to ruggedness. You might want t

Re: [PERFORM] Advice on RAID card

>> Even for RAID5 ? it uses a bit more CPU for the parity calculations. > I honestly can't speak to RAID 5. I don't (and won't) use it. RAID 5 is > a little brutal when under > heavy write load. I use either 1, or 10. Yes, for RAID5 software RAID is better than HW RAID today - the modern gen

Re: [PERFORM] Advice on RAID card

On Sun, Sep 25, 2005 at 01:41:06PM -0400, Greg Stark wrote: Also, Raid 5 is particularly inappropriate for write-heavy Database traffic. Raid 5 actually hurts write latency dramatically and Databases are very sensitive to latency. Software raid 5 actually may have an advantage here. The main ca

Re: [PERFORM] Advice on RAID card

PFC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Which makes me think that I will use Software Raid 5 and convert the > price of the card into RAM. > This should be nice for a budget server. > Gonna investigate now if Linux software RAID5 is rugged enough. Can > always buy the a card later if n

Re: [PERFORM] Advice on RAID card

There is a huge advantage to software raid on all kinds of levels. If you have the CPU then I suggest it. However you will never get the performance out of software raid on the high level (think 1 gig of cache) that you would on a software raid setup. It is a bit of a tradeoff but for most

Re: [PERFORM] Advice on RAID card

Even for RAID5 ? it uses a bit more CPU for the parity calculations. I honestly can't speak to RAID 5. I don't (and won't) use it. RAID 5 is a little brutal when under heavy write load. I use either 1, or 10. An advantage of software raid, is that if the RAID card dies, you have t

Re: [PERFORM] Advice on RAID card

The common explanation is that CPUs are so fast now that it doesn't make a difference. From my experience software raid works very, very well. However I have never put software raid on anything that is very heavily loaded. Even for RAID5 ? it uses a bit more CPU for the parity ca

Re: [PERFORM] Advice on RAID card

Dave Cramer wrote: I would think software raid would be quite inappropriate considering postgres when it is working is taking a fair amount of CPU as would software RAID. Does anyone know if this is really the case ? The common explanation is that CPUs are so fast now that it doesn't make

Re: [PERFORM] Advice on RAID card

On Sun, Sep 25, 2005 at 10:57:56AM -0400, Dave Cramer wrote: I would think software raid would be quite inappropriate considering postgres when it is working is taking a fair amount of CPU as would software RAID. Does anyone know if this is really the case ? It's not. Modern cpu's can handle

Re: [PERFORM] Advice on RAID card

On 9/25/05, Dave Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would think software raid would be quite inappropriate considering > postgres when it is working is taking a fair amount of CPU as would > software RAID. Does anyone know if this is really the case ? > I attempted to get some extra speed out o

Re: [PERFORM] Advice on RAID card

I would think software raid would be quite inappropriate considering postgres when it is working is taking a fair amount of CPU as would software RAID. Does anyone know if this is really the case ? Dave On 25-Sep-05, at 6:17 AM, Michael Ben-Nes wrote: I would consider Software Raid PFC wr

Re: [PERFORM] Advice on RAID card

I would consider Software Raid PFC wrote: Hello fellow Postgresql'ers. I've been stumbled on this RAID card which looks nice. It is a PCI-X SATA Raid card with 6 channels, and does RAID 0,1,5,10,50. It is a HP card with an Adaptec chip on it, and 64 MB cache. HP Part # :

Re: [PERFORM] Advice on RAID card

It looks like a rebranded low end Adaptec 64MB PCI-X <-> SATA RAID card. Looks like the 64MB buffer is not upgradable. Looks like it's SATA, not SATA II Yeah, that's exactly what it is. I can get one for 150 Euro, the Areca is at least 600. This is for a budget server so while it would be n

Re: [PERFORM] Advice on RAID card

---Original Message- From: PFC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sep 24, 2005 4:34 AM To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: [PERFORM] Advice on RAID card Hello fellow Postgresql'ers. I've been stumbled on this RAID card which looks nice. It is a PCI-X SATA Rai

[PERFORM] Advice on RAID card

Hello fellow Postgresql'ers. I've been stumbled on this RAID card which looks nice. It is a PCI-X SATA Raid card with 6 channels, and does RAID 0,1,5,10,50. It is a HP card with an Adaptec chip on it, and 64 MB cache. HP Part # : 372953-B21 Adaptec Part # :