Received: from localhost (maia-4.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A45519FA103 for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2006 18:30:50 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 07218-07 for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2006 18:30:44 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from mail.clickspace.com (torch1.clickspace.com [207.148.169.68]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 964A29FA285 for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2006 18:30:44 -0400 (AST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by mail.clickspace.com (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher AES128-SHA (128 bits)); Wed, 6 Dec 2006 15:30:40 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <663E7F7B-680B-42C2-BA6A-A237E95CDCEA@clickspace.com> Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Brian Wipf Subject: Re: Areca 1260 Performance (was: File Systems Compared) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 15:30:39 -0700 To: Ron X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200612/157 X-Sequence-Number: 22213 On 6-Dec-06, at 2:47 PM, Brian Wipf wrote: >> Hmmm. Something is not right. With a 16 HD RAID 10 based on 10K >> rpm HDs, you should be seeing higher absolute performance numbers. >> >> Find out what HW the Areca guys and Tweakers guys used to test the >> 1280s. >> At LW2006, Areca was demonstrating all-in-cache reads and writes >> of ~1600MBps and ~1300MBps respectively along with RAID 0 >> Sustained Rates of ~900MBps read, and ~850MBps write. >> >> Luke, I know you've managed to get higher IO rates than this with >> this class of HW. Is there a OS or SW config issue Brian should >> closely investigate? > > I wrote 1280 by a mistake. It's actually a 1260. Sorry about that. > The IOP341 class of cards weren't available when we ordered the > parts for the box, so we had to go with the 1260. The box(es) we > build next month will either have the 1261ML or 1280 depending on > whether we go 16 or 24 disk. > > I noticed Bucky got almost 800 random seeks per second on her 6 > disk 10000 RPM SAS drive Dell PowerEdge 2950. The random seek > performance of this box disappointed me the most. Even running 2 > concurrent bonnies, the random seek performance only increased from > 644 seeks/sec to 813 seeks/sec. Maybe there is some setting I'm > missing? This card looked pretty impressive on tweakers.net. Areca has some performance numbers in a downloadable PDF for the Areca ARC-1120, which is in the same class as the ARC-1260, except with 8 ports. With all 8 drives in a RAID 0 the card gets the following performance numbers: Card single thread write 20 thread write single thread read 20 thread read ARC-1120 321.26 MB/s 404.76 MB/s 412.55 MB/ s 672.45 MB/s My numbers for sequential i/o for the ARC-1260 in a 16 disk RAID 10 are slightly better than the ARC-1120 in an 8 disk RAID 0 for a single thread. I guess this means my numbers are reasonable.