Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A53264FFB3
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 10 Dec 2008 08:29:28 -0400 (AST)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 16951-09
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 10 Dec 2008 08:29:24 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mx.inode.at (mx15.lb01.inode.at [62.99.145.17])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7856664FEF1
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 10 Dec 2008 08:29:23 -0400 (AST)
Received: from [85.124.56.44] (port=9639 helo=[10.192.17.33])
	by smartmx-15.inode.at with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
	id 1LAOBq-0007WP-HV; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 13:29:19 +0100
Message-ID: <493FB619.5060205@sime.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 13:29:13 +0100
From: Mario Weilguni <mweilguni@sime.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (X11/20081125)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Aidan Van Dyk <aidan@highrise.ca>
CC: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>,
	Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Experience with HP Smart Array P400 and SATA drives?
References: <4934FE60.30702@sime.com>
	<dcc563d10812051500h331ac82fp62142cf611b3a79d@mail.gmail.com>
	<493E6023.3030800@sime.com>
	<1228838308.13962.0.camel@jd-laptop.pragmaticzealot.org>
	<20081209161750.GO26596@yugib.highrise.ca>
In-Reply-To: <20081209161750.GO26596@yugib.highrise.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200812/112
X-Sequence-Number: 32148

Aidan Van Dyk schrieb:
> * Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> [081209 11:01]:
>  
>   
>> Yes the SmartArray series is quite common and actually know to perform
>> reasonably well, in RAID 10. You still appear to be trying RAID 5.
>>     
>
> *boggle* 
>
> Are people *still* using raid5?
>
> /me gives up!
>
>   

Why not? I know it's not performing as good as RAID-10, but it does not 
waste 50% diskspace. RAID-6 is no option, because the performance is 
even worse. And, on another system with RAID-5 + spare and SAS drives, 
the same controller is working very well.