From: | Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing(at)tweakers(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Harsh Azad <harsh(dot)azad(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: SAN vs Internal Disks |
Date: | 2007-09-06 19:38:02 |
Message-ID: | 46E0571A.7000102@tweakers.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 6-9-2007 20:42 Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On 9/6/07, Harsh Azad <harsh(dot)azad(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> How about the Dell Perc 5/i card, 512MB battery backed cache or IBM
>> ServeRAID-8k Adapter?
>
> All Dell Percs have so far been based on either adaptec or LSI
> controllers, and have ranged from really bad to fairly decent
> performers. There were some recent posts on this list where someone
> was benchmarking one, I believe. searching the list archives might
> prove useful.
The Dell PERC5-cards are based on LSI-chips and perform quite well.
Afaik Dell hasn't used adaptecs for a while now, but even recent
(non-cheap ;) ) adaptecs aren't that bad afaik.
The disadvantage of using Areca or 3Ware is obviously the lack of
support in A-brand servers and the lack of support for SAS-disks. Only
recently Areca has stepped in the SAS-market, but I have no idea how
easily those controllers are integrated in standard servers (they tend
to be quite large, which will not fit in 2U and maybe not even in 3U or
4U-servers).
Arjen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Arjen van der Meijden | 2007-09-06 19:40:25 | Re: SAN vs Internal Disks |
Previous Message | Joel Fradkin | 2007-09-06 19:14:04 | Re: SAN vs Internal Disks |