Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C75399F9866 for ; Mon, 5 Nov 2007 09:19:27 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 76182-03-2 for ; Mon, 5 Nov 2007 09:19:15 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.187]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 873FD9F9865 for ; Mon, 5 Nov 2007 09:19:20 -0400 (AST) Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id f5so1085687nfh for ; Mon, 05 Nov 2007 05:19:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; bh=OhH3ksIK6rha7nMNRZ5ECWpzhdZceOUVv3iVgFBGymw=; b=fd9kdT60t/TvpC7VMqDFBJJLQWZcP042Ge/P8JyU/5Tfz5xjxMdbq/FOzFMbLDaMVIAnDnnE1FH3zylNJwKbwhw1mgJTwlrimBwd7jMqheYzTeIjFmGo2RANYkcIT2i4x5nCw23iG2/ABYP4jja+cavjbUcDYu01eCwWO+IpA38= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=NHxootKDS3YlSiCjkIv1badMBSF4jQfSXqn1jrZGb4IcjEYAhG6SI0dWxNGM2vgkrZOZJsOGG/mkbJTr9j4Tc2K1ZdAsLzuhq6orAbOOMXEZMgBA6Q8ked17nZTGyx3n2PkkN4RW2tcyUe//wAKBvkSBwX10Aa4Yo3l33DeQEfM= Received: by 10.78.181.13 with SMTP id d13mr3732152huf.1194268758127; Mon, 05 Nov 2007 05:19:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.78.146.10 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Nov 2007 05:19:18 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 14:19:18 +0100 From: "Claus Guttesen" To: "PostgreSQL Performance" Subject: hp ciss on freebsd MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200711/56 X-Sequence-Number: 27471 Hi. We are using a HP DL 380 G5 with 4 sas-disks at 10K rpm. The controller is a built in ciss-controller with 256 MB battery-backed cache. It is partitioned as raid 1+0. Our queries are mainly selects. I will get four 72 GB sas-disks at 15K rpm. Reading the archives suggest raid 1+0 for optimal read/write performance, but with a solid raid-controller raid 5 will also perform very well when reading. Is the ciss-controller found in HP-servers a "better" raid-controller compared to the areca-raid-controller mentioned on this list? -- regards Claus When lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentlest gamester is the soonest winner. Shakespeare