From: Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
To: Jeff <threshar@torgo.978.org>
To: Pgsql performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: 3ware vs Areca
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:59:00 -0700
Message-ID: <C49CC344.6743A%llonergan@greenplum.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <581D2333-E731-4843-BC31-39840E272C62@torgo.978.org>
The Arecas are a lot faster than the 9550, more noticeable with disk counts
from 12 on up. At 8 disks you may not see much difference.
The 3Ware 9650 is their answer to the Areca and it put the two a lot closer.
FWIW we got some Arecas at one point and had trouble getting them
configured and working properly.
- Luke
On 7/11/08 6:26 AM, "Jeff" <threshar@torgo.978.org> wrote:
> I've got a couple boxes with some 3ware 9550 controllers, and I'm less than
> pleased with performance on them.. Sequential access is nice, but start
> seeking around and you kick it in the gut. (I've found posts on the internets
> about others having similar issues). My last box with a 3ware I simply had it
> in jbod mode and used sw raid and it smoked the hw.
>
> Anyway, anybody have experience in 3ware vs Areca - I've heard plenty of good
> anecdotal things that Areca is much better, just wondering if anybody here has
> firsthand experience. It'll be plugged into about 8 10k rpm sata disks.
>
> thanks
>
> --
> Jeff Trout <jeff@jefftrout.com>
> http://www.stuarthamm.net/
> http://www.dellsmartexitin.com/
>
>
>
>
>
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: llonergan@greenplum.com, threshar@torgo.978.org
Subject: Re: 3ware vs Areca
In-Reply-To: <C49CC344.6743A%llonergan@greenplum.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox