Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FF23633DA9 for ; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 15:22:34 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 88656-06 for ; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 18:22:23 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.17.9]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BCE0633BA0 for ; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 15:22:23 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.0.105] (pool-96-244-14-10.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [96.244.14.10]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mreu2) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0Lg4lz-1NAynO3gD5-00pfQq; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 20:22:22 +0200 Message-ID: <4BBF705C.6060601@2ndquadrant.com> Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 14:22:20 -0400 From: Greg Smith User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100317) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jesper Krogh CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: 3ware vs. MegaRAID References: <4BB1FAAF.7050406@wp.pl> <4BB23254.2040109@2ndquadrant.com> <4BBB662C.8030102@wp.pl> <23D26E38-9852-4EB6-9DF9-FCB2EAE1EE6C@richrelevance.com> <4BBECA06.40602@krogh.cc> <4BBF477A.4080701@2ndquadrant.com> <4BBF51B6.8070307@krogh.cc> In-Reply-To: <4BBF51B6.8070307@krogh.cc> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/Y0m/OUHoZMzW+Iurw8wlkL9m9eLn4KCKSwqV 5aIwMxdaq/uDoNjccZr7iHJxEbc1BxYZapE9qxX5vRNk0UkX4E EF4PBgFbHe1KDtR6BBWyCo564EkSaR9 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201004/122 X-Sequence-Number: 38372 Jesper Krogh wrote: > I've spent quite some hours googling today. Am I totally wrong if the: > HP MSA-20/30/70 and Sun Oracle J4200's: > https://shop.sun.com/store/product/53a01251-2fce-11dc-9482-080020a9ed93 > are of the same type just from "major" vendors. Yes, those are the same type of implementation. Every vendor has their own preferred way to handle port expansion, and most are somewhat scared about discussing the whole thing now because EMC has a ridiculous patent on the whole idea[1]. They all work the same from the user perspective, albeit sometimes with their own particular daisy chaining rules. > That would enable me to reuse the existing server and moving to something > like Intel's X25-M 160GB disks with just a higher amount (25) in a > MSA-70. I guess, but note that several of us here consider Intel's SSDs unsuitable for critical database use. There are some rare but not impossible to encounter problems with its write caching implementation that leave you exposed to database corruption if there's a nasty power interruption. Can't get rid of the problem without destroying both performance and longevity of the drive[2][3]. If you're going to deploy something using those drives, please make sure you're using an aggressive real-time backup scheme such as log shipping in order to minimize your chance of catastrophic data loss. [1] http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7624206.html [2] http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2009/03/02/ssd-xfs-lvm-fsync-write-cache-barrier-and-lost-transactions/ [3] http://petereisentraut.blogspot.com/2009/07/solid-state-drive-benchmarks-and-write.html -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support greg@2ndQuadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.us