| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | mark <dvlhntr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Glyn Astill <glynastill(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)uk>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Linux: more cores = less concurrency. |
| Date: | 2011-04-12 00:18:59 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTinJuWWnG7OyLVkcMZDU3yHx89mx9Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 6:05 PM, mark <dvlhntr(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Just wondering, which LSI card ?
>> Was this 32 drives in Raid 1+0 with a two drive raid 1 for logs or some
>> other config?
>
> We were using teh LSI8888 but I'll be switching back to Areca when we
> go back to HW RAID. The LSI8888 only performed well if we setup 15
> RAID-1 pairs in HW and use linux SW RAID 0 on top. RAID1+0 in the
> LSI8888 was a pretty mediocre performer. Areca 1680 OTOH, beats it in
> every test, with HW RAID10 only. Much simpler to admin.
And it was RAID-10 w 4 drives for pg_xlog and RAID-10 with 24 drives
for the data store. Both controllers, and pure SW when the LSI8888s
cooked inside the poorly cooled Supermicro 1U we had it in.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | mark | 2011-04-12 00:50:32 | Re: Linux: more cores = less concurrency. |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2011-04-12 00:18:02 | Re: Linux: more cores = less concurrency. |