X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D8419DC98C for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 11:41:21 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 41543-04 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 11:41:26 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from mail.Mi8.com (d01gw01.mi8.com [63.240.6.47]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DFD19DC816 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 11:41:18 -0400 (AST) Received: from 172.16.1.112 by mail.Mi8.com with ESMTP (- Welcome to Mi8 Corporation www.Mi8.com (D1)); Fri, 24 Feb 2006 10:41:13 -0500 X-Server-Uuid: 241911D6-425B-44B9-A073-E3FE0F8FC774 Received: from MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com ([172.16.1.175]) by D01SMTP02.Mi8.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 24 Feb 2006 10:41:12 -0500 Received: from 69.181.100.71 ([69.181.100.71]) by MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com ( [172.16.1.219]) via Exchange Front-End Server mi8owa.mi8.com ( [172.16.1.105]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:41:12 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.1.051004 Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 07:41:12 -0800 Subject: Re: Reliability recommendations From: "Luke Lonergan" To: "Luke Lonergan" , "Bruce Momjian" , "Christopher Browne" cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [PERFORM] Reliability recommendations Thread-Index: AcY5Tu051lElMhjHSsadVf3PiYjSzwABg8YfAADwNdc= In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Feb 2006 15:41:12.0694 (UTC) FILETIME=[BD910160:01C63958] X-WSS-ID: 6FE1F69331W11063204-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.35 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.097, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=1.253] X-Spam-Score: 1.35 X-Spam-Level: * X-Archive-Number: 200602/385 X-Sequence-Number: 17371 Bruce, On 2/24/06 7:14 AM, "Luke Lonergan" wrote: > So, if you want RAID5, these machines work for me. The lack of RAID 10 > could knock them out of contention for people. Sorry in advance for the double post, but there's some more information on this, which altogether demonstrates why people get frustrated with Dell IMO. Later on in the article I cited, the same person who listed Dell's technical description of their strange, not really RAID10 support, he mentions that he called LSI directly to find out the real scoop. He says that they (LSI) told him that the LSI controller does support real RAID10, so he concluded that the Dell could do it too. However, Dell's documentation seems unambiguous to me, and matches our direct experience. Also, more online documentation from Dell reinforces this. See their definition of both RAID10 and spanning in this backgrounder: http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/storage/RAID/RAIDbk0.pdf. Seems that they are clear about what striping and spanning do, and what RAID10 does, making their delineation of the standard RAID10 support versus what some of their controllers do (all of the PERC 4 series) pretty clear. So, I'd conclude at this point that Dell seems to have implemented a RAID BIOS that does not allow true RAID10 or RAID50 on their embedded LSI adapters, which could otherwise support RAID10/50. They have done this intentionally, for some reason unknown to me and it seems to some people at LSI as well. - Luke