From: Alex Turner <armtuk@gmail.com>
To: Richard_D_Levine@raytheon.com <Richard_D_Levine@raytheon.com>
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Intel SRCS16 SATA raid?
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:13:41 -0400
Message-ID: <33c6269f05041410135875d7c5@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <33c6269f05041410011fe1f283@mail.gmail.com>
References: <87zmw1h0i2.fsf@stark.xeocode.com>
<OF03BE9953.89EA36F9-ON05256FE3.0059A05D-05256FE3.0059EDDD@ftw.us.ray.com>
<33c6269f05041410011fe1f283@mail.gmail.com>
I have put together a little head to head performance of a 15k SCSI,
10k SCSI 10K SATA w/TCQ, 10K SATA wo/TCQ and 7.2K SATA drive
comparison at storage review
http://www.storagereview.com/php/benchmark/compare_rtg_2001.php?typeID=10&testbedID=3&osID=4...
It does illustrate some of the weaknesses of SATA drives, but all in
all the Raptor drives put on a good show.
Alex Turner
netEconomist
On 4/14/05, Alex Turner <armtuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have read a large chunk of this, and I would highly recommend it to
> anyone who has been participating in the drive discussions. It is
> most informative!!
>
> Alex Turner
> netEconomist
>
> On 4/14/05, Richard_D_Levine@raytheon.com <Richard_D_Levine@raytheon.com> wrote:
> > Greg,
> >
> > I posted this link under a different thread (the $7k server thread). It is
> > a very good read on why SCSI is better for servers than ATA. I didn't note
> > bias, though it is from a drive manufacturer. YMMV. There is an
> > interesting, though dated appendix on different manufacturers' drive
> > characteristics.
> >
> > http://www.seagate.com/content/docs/pdf/whitepaper/D2c_More_than_Interface_ATA_vs_SCSI_042003.pdf
> >
> > Enjoy,
> >
> > Rick
> >
> > pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org wrote on 04/14/2005 09:54:45 AM:
> >
> > >
> > > Our vendor is trying to sell us on an Intel SRCS16 SATA raid controller
> > > instead of the 3ware one.
> > >
> > > Poking around it seems this does come with Linux drivers and there is a
> > > battery backup option. So it doesn't seem to be completely insane.
> > >
> > > Anyone have any experience with these controllers?
> > >
> > > I'm also wondering about whether I'm better off with one of these SATA
> > raid
> > > controllers or just going with SCSI drives.
> > >
> > > --
> > > greg
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > > TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
> > joining column's datatypes do not match
> >
>
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: armtuk@gmail.com, Richard_D_Levine@raytheon.com, gsstark@mit.edu, pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Intel SRCS16 SATA raid?
In-Reply-To: <33c6269f05041410135875d7c5@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox