| From: | "Guy Rouillier" <guyr(at)masergy(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hardware related question: 3ware 9500S |
| Date: | 2006-04-15 20:03:31 |
| Message-ID: | CC1CF380F4D70844B01D45982E671B230137A88A@mtxexch01.add0.masergy.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Alex Turner wrote:
> Raid 5 on the 9550SX is supposed to be significantly better than the
> 9500 series.
>
> I would be carefull of benchmarks listed out there. For instance,
> whilst looking for supporting material, I came cross this gem:
>
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/print_content.asp?id=9550sx4lp&cookie%5Ftest=
1
>
> They claim the they used a Tyan Thunder K8WE motherboard, and
> installed the RAID controllers in a 64-bit 133MHz PCI-X slot. This
> motherboard doesn't have any 64-bit 133Mhz PCI-X slots! (
> http://www.tyan.com/products/html/tigerk8we_spec.html).
> It's no wonder that the other raid controllers showed significantly
> less performance than the PCI-e card.
You're looking at the wrong board. They are talking about the Tyan
*Thunder*, which does indeed have 64-bit PCI-X. You are looking at the
Tyan **Tiger**, which does not.
--
Guy Rouillier
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrus | 2006-04-15 20:41:33 | starne error from select 1!=-1 |
| Previous Message | Alex Turner | 2006-04-15 17:21:13 | Re: Hardware related question: 3ware 9500S |