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
"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
[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
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
>> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 # :
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
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
There are much better ways to spend your money.
These are the products with the current best price/performance ratio:
http://www.areca.us/produc
17 matches
Mail list logo
