On Wednesday 14 November 2007, Jeff Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > OK, impressive RAID-6 performance (not so impressive RAID-10
> > performance, but that could be a filesystem issue). Note to self; try
> > an Areca controller in next storage server.
>
> I believe these were both on ext3. I
On Nov 14, 2007, at 5:36 PM, Jeff Frost wrote:
I believe these were both on ext3. I thought I had some XFS results
available for comparison, but I couldn't find them.
You'd see similar with the UFS2 file system on FreeBSD.
---(end of broadcast)---
On Nov 14, 2007, at 9:19 PM, Jeff Frost wrote:
On an 8xRAID10 volume with the smaller Areca controller we were
seeing around 450 seeks/sec.
On our 6 disk raid10 on a 3ware 9550sx I'm able to get about 120 seek
+ reads/sec per process, with an aggregate up to about 500 or so.
The dis
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Nov 14, 2007 5:24 PM, Alan Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tuesday 13 November 2007, Jeff Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok, Areca ARC1261ML. Note that results were similar for an 8 drive RAID6
vs 8 drive RAID10, but I don't have those bon
On Nov 14, 2007 5:24 PM, Alan Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 November 2007, Jeff Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ok, Areca ARC1261ML. Note that results were similar for an 8 drive RAID6
> > vs 8 drive RAID10, but I don't have those bonnie results any longer.
> >
> > Versio
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, Alan Hodgson wrote:
On Tuesday 13 November 2007, Jeff Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok, Areca ARC1261ML. Note that results were similar for an 8 drive RAID6
vs 8 drive RAID10, but I don't have those bonnie results any longer.
Version 1.03 --Sequential Output
On Tuesday 13 November 2007, Jeff Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, Areca ARC1261ML. Note that results were similar for an 8 drive RAID6
> vs 8 drive RAID10, but I don't have those bonnie results any longer.
>
> Version 1.03 --Sequential Output-- --Sequential Input-
> --Random-
On Nov 8, 2007 1:22 PM, Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mine too. I would suggest though, that by the time you get to 14
> disks, you switch from RAID-5 to RAID-6 so you have double redundancy.
> Performance of a degraded array is better in RAID6 than RAID5, and
> you can run your rebu
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, Alan Hodgson wrote:
OK, I'll bite. Name one RAID controller that gives better write
performance in RAID 6 than it does in RAID 10, and post the benchmarks.
I'll grant a theoretical reliability edge to RAID 6 (although actual
implementations are a lot more iffy), but not per
On November 9, 2007, Vivek Khera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 2007, at 3:56 PM, Alan Hodgson wrote:
> > You can't touch RAID 10 for performance or reliability. The only
> > reason to
> > use RAID 5 or RAID 6 is to get more capacity out of the same
> > drives.
>
> Maybe you can't, but I ca
On Nov 8, 2007, at 3:56 PM, Alan Hodgson wrote:
You can't touch RAID 10 for performance or reliability. The only
reason to
use RAID 5 or RAID 6 is to get more capacity out of the same drives.
Maybe you can't, but I can. I guess I have better toys than you :-)
---(
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Scott Marlowe wrote:
Not atm. Until new benchmarks are published comparing AMD's new
quad-core with Intel's ditto, Intel has the edge.
http://tweakers.net/reviews/657/6
For 8 cores, it appears AMD has the lead, read this (stolen from
another thread):
http://people.freebsd.o
On Nov 9, 2007 10:40 AM, Claus Guttesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Apart from the disks, you might also investigate using Opterons instead
> > of Xeons. there appears to be some significant dent in performance
> > between Opteron and Xeon. Xeons appear to spend more time in passing
> > around o
> Apart from the disks, you might also investigate using Opterons instead
> of Xeons. there appears to be some significant dent in performance
> between Opteron and Xeon. Xeons appear to spend more time in passing
> around ownership of memory cache lines in case of a spinlock.
> It's not yet clear
Apart from the disks, you might also investigate using Opterons instead
of Xeons. there appears to be some significant dent in performance
between Opteron and Xeon. Xeons appear to spend more time in passing
around ownership of memory cache lines in case of a spinlock.
It's not yet clear whether or
* Scott Marlowe:
> If the right two disks fail in a RAID-10 you lose everything.
> Admittedly, that's a pretty remote possibility,
It's not, unless you carefully layout the RAID-1 subunits so that
their drives aren't physically adjacent. 8-/ I don't think many
controllers support that.
--
Flori
On Nov 8, 2007 2:56 PM, Alan Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 08 November 2007, Dimitri Fontaine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Is raid6 better than raid10 in term of overall performances, or a better
> > cut when you need capacity more than throughput?
>
> You can't touch RAID 10 for perf
On Nov 8, 2007, at 1:22 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
I've heard the newest adaptecs, even the perc implementations aren't
bad.
I have a pair of Adaptec 2230SLP cards. Worst. Just replaced them on
Tuesday with fibre channel cards connected to external RAID
enclosures. Much nicer.
-
On Thursday 08 November 2007, Dimitri Fontaine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Is raid6 better than raid10 in term of overall performances, or a better
> cut when you need capacity more than throughput?
You can't touch RAID 10 for performance or reliability. The only reason to
use RAID 5 or RAID 6 is to g
>>> On Thu, Nov 8, 2007 at 2:14 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dimitri Fontaine
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Dell 2900 5U machine has 10 spindles max, that would make 2 for the OS
> (raid1) and 8 for mixing WAL and data... not enough to benefit from the
> move,
> or still to test?
Le Thursday 08 November 2007 19:22:48 Scott Marlowe, vous avez écrit :
> On Nov 8, 2007 10:43 AM, Vivek Khera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 2007, at 1:10 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> > > elsewhere. But once you have enough disks in an array to spread all
> > > the load over that itself may i
On Nov 8, 2007 10:43 AM, Vivek Khera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Nov 6, 2007, at 1:10 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
>
> > elsewhere. But once you have enough disks in an array to spread all
> > the load over that itself may improve write throughput enough to
> > still be a net improvement.
>
> This
On Nov 6, 2007, at 1:10 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
elsewhere. But once you have enough disks in an array to spread all
the load over that itself may improve write throughput enough to
still be a net improvement.
This has been my expeience with 14+ disks in an array (both RAID10 and
RAID5).
On Nov 6, 2007, at 5:12 AM, Tore Halset wrote:
Here are our current alternatives:
Two things I recommend. If the drives are made by western digital,
run away.
If the PERC5/i is an Adaptec card, run away.
Max out your cache RAM on the RAID card. 256 is the minimum when you
have such b
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Some knowing-better-than-me people on #postgresql had the remark that
depending on the write transaction volumes (40 to 60 percent of my tps, but
no so much for this hardware), I could somewhat benefit in setting the WAL on
the OS raid1, and having 8 r
Le mardi 06 novembre 2007, Tore Halset a écrit :
> Interesting. Do you have any benchmarking numbers? Did you test with
> software raid 10 as well?
Just some basic pg_restore figures, which only make sense (for me anyway) when
compared to restoring same data on other machines, and to show the eff
On Nov 6, 2007, at 12:36 , Claus Guttesen wrote:
All of our existing servers are from Dell, but I want to look at some
other options as well. We are currently looking at rack boxes with 8
internal SAS discs. Two mirrored for OS, Two mirrored for WAL and 4
in
raid 10 for the base.
Here are o
On Nov 6, 2007, at 12:53 , Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Le mardi 06 novembre 2007, Tore Halset a écrit :
1) Dell 2900 (5U)
8 * 146 GB SAS 15Krpm 3,5"
8GB ram
Perc 5/i. battery backup. 256MB ram.
2 * 4 Xeon 2,66GHz
In fact you can add 2 hot-plug disks on this setup, connected to the
frontpane. We'v
Tore,
* Tore Halset ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> All of our existing servers are from Dell, but I want to look at some other
> options as well. We are currently looking at rack boxes with 8 internal SAS
> discs. Two mirrored for OS, Two mirrored for WAL and 4 in raid 10 for the
> base.
I'm a b
Hi List,
Le mardi 06 novembre 2007, Tore Halset a écrit :
> 1) Dell 2900 (5U)
> 8 * 146 GB SAS 15Krpm 3,5"
> 8GB ram
> Perc 5/i. battery backup. 256MB ram.
> 2 * 4 Xeon 2,66GHz
In fact you can add 2 hot-plug disks on this setup, connected to the
frontpane. We've bought this very same model with
> All of our existing servers are from Dell, but I want to look at some
> other options as well. We are currently looking at rack boxes with 8
> internal SAS discs. Two mirrored for OS, Two mirrored for WAL and 4 in
> raid 10 for the base.
>
> Here are our current alternatives:
>
> 1) Dell 2900 (5U
31 matches
Mail list logo
