Message-ID: <4BBB662C.8030102@wp.pl>
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 18:49:48 +0200
From: Ireneusz Pluta <ipluta@wp.pl>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>
CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: 3ware vs. MegaRAID
References: <4BB1FAAF.7050406@wp.pl> <4BB23254.2040109@2ndquadrant.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BB23254.2040109@2ndquadrant.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Greg Smith pisze:
>
> The MegaRAID SAS 84* cards have worked extremely well for me in terms 
> of performance and features for all the systems I've seen them 
> installed in.  I'd consider it a modest upgrade from that 3ware card, 
> speed wise.  
OK, sounds promising.
> The main issue with the MegaRAID cards is that you will have to write 
> a lot of your own custom scripts to monitor for failures using their 
> painful MegaCLI utility, and under FreeBSD that also requires using 
> their Linux utility via emulation:  
> http://www.freebsdsoftware.org/sysutils/linux-megacli.html
>
And this is what worries me, as I prefer not to play with utilities too 
much, but put the hardware into production, instead. So I'd like to find 
more precisely if expected speed boost would pay enough for that pain. 
Let me ask the following way then, if such a question makes much sense 
with the data I provide. I already have  another box with 3ware 
9650SE-16ML. With the array configured as follows:
RAID-10, 14 x 500GB Seagate ST3500320NS, stripe size 256K, 16GB RAM, 
Xeon X5355, write caching enabled, BBU, FreeBSD 7.2, ufs,
when testing with bonnie++ on idle machine, I got sequential block 
read/write around 320MB/290MB and random seeks around 660.

Would that result be substantially better with LSI MegaRAID?