On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 03:39:58PM -0800, Richard Elling wrote:
> Jochen M. Kaiser wrote:
> >Didn't find any decent SAS controllers though, qlogic has some,
> >but the PCIe model with two external ports isn't supported on
> >Solaris. The single port model would work though...
>
> We (Sun) sell LSI
Jochen M. Kaiser wrote:
Didn't find any decent SAS controllers though, qlogic has some,
but the PCIe model with two external ports isn't supported on
Solaris. The single port model would work though...
We (Sun) sell LSI 1064-based SAS/SATA controllers. There should be
several sources of these
Al,
> > Being a friend of simplicity I was thinking about
> using a pair (or more) of 3320
> > SCSI JBODs with multiple RAIDZ and/or RAID10 zfs
> disk pools on which we'd
>
> Have you not heard that SCSI is dead? :)
> While I understand you don't want to build a SAN, an
> alternative would be
> But seriously, the big issue with SCSI, is that the SCSI commands are sent
> over the SCSI bus at the original (legacy) rate of 5 Mbits/Sec in 8-bit
> mode.
Actually, this isn't true on the newest (Ultra320) SCSI systems, though I don't
know if the 3320 supports packetized SCSI. It's definitel
Anton B. Rang writes:
> If your database performance is dominated by sequential reads, ZFS may
> not be the best solution from a performance perspective. Because ZFS
> uses a write-anywhere layout, any database table which is being
> updated will quickly become scattered on the disk, so that s
Luke,
On 12/11/06, Luke Lonergan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The performance comes from the parallel version of pgsql, which uses all
CPUs and I/O channels together (and not special settings of ZFS). What sets
this apart from Oracle is that it's an automatic parallelism that leverages
the intern
Anton,
On 12/8/06 7:18 AM, "Anton B. Rang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If your database performance is dominated by sequential reads, ZFS may not be
> the best solution from a performance perspective. Because ZFS uses a
> write-anywhere layout, any database table which is being updated will quic
But can't this behavior be "tuned" (so to speak...I hate that word but I
can't think of
something better) by increasing the recordsize?
For DSS applications, Video streaming, etcapps that read very large
files, I seem
to remember (in some ZFS work many, many months ago), getting very goo
If your database performance is dominated by sequential reads, ZFS may not be
the best solution from a performance perspective. Because ZFS uses a
write-anywhere layout, any database table which is being updated will quickly
become scattered on the disk, so that sequential read patterns become r
