X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9C30528CE for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2005 04:43:04 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 71253-01 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2005 07:43:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp3.libero.it (smtp3.libero.it [193.70.192.127]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40294528C7 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2005 04:43:01 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (172.16.1.79) by smtp3.libero.it (7.0.027-DD01) id 428B9D5C003836A9; Fri, 3 Jun 2005 09:43:00 +0200 Received: from [151.25.102.133] (151.25.102.133) by smtp2.libero.it (7.0.027-DD01) (authenticated as tdezotti@inwind.it) id 41BF65E407F51417; Fri, 3 Jun 2005 09:43:20 +0200 Message-ID: <42A008AD.7010307@streppone.it> Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 09:37:17 +0200 From: Cosimo Streppone User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (X11/20041103) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stacy White Cc: Postgresql Performance list Subject: Re: Adaptec/LSI/?? RAID References: <002601c56725$2bdd2010$0200a8c0@grownups> In-Reply-To: <002601c56725$2bdd2010$0200a8c0@grownups> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at libero.it serv1 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.048 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200506/61 X-Sequence-Number: 12699 Stacy White wrote: > We're in the process of buying another Opteron server to run Postgres, and > based on the suggestions in this list I've asked our IT director to get an > LSI MegaRaid controller rather than one of the Adaptecs. > > But when we tried to place our order, our vendor (Penguin Computing) advised > "we find LSI does not work well with 4GB of RAM. Our engineering find that > LSI card could cause system crashes. One of our customer ... has found that > Adaptec cards works well on PostGres SQL Probably, your vendor is trying to avoid problems at all, but "one of our customers" is not a pretty general case, and "we find LSI does not work well", but is there a documented reason? Anyway, my personal experience has been with an Acer Altos R701 + S300 external storage unit, equipped with LSI Logic Megaraid U320 aka AMI Megaraid aka LSI Elite 1600 (honestly, these cards come with zillions of names and subnames, that I don't know exactly how to call them). This system was configured in various ways. The final layout is 3 x RAID1 arrays (each of 2 disks) and 1 x RAID10 array (12 disks). This configuration is only available when you use 2 LSI cards (one for each S300 scsi bus). The system behaves pretty well, with a sustained sequential write rate of 80Mb/s, and more importantly, a quite high load in our environment of 10 oltp transactions per second, without any problems and `cat /proc/loadavg` < 1. I don't like the raid configuration system of LSI, that is counter-intuitive for raid 10 arrays. It got me 4 hours and a tech support call to figure out how to do it right. Also, I think LSI cards don't behave well with particular raid configurations, like RAID 0 with 4 disks, or RAID 10 with also 4 disks. It seemed that these configurations put the controller under heavy load, thus behaving unreasonably worse than, for example, 6-disks-RAID0 or 6-disks-RAID1. Sorry, I can't be more "scientific" on this. For Adaptec, I don't have any direct experience. -- Cosimo