DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version
	:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition
	:references;
	b=SmcllAG3XsvN8ukoBthV/+gbQtN/8Zs4w2h+A2gp6f77I0caplglT42ryb/XJSjTkP
	k3tSDmyedM8gCXysggPxccTZ4v/GZlR+ReKdKw8fl41dplhIz2Mp8VYoczCv6la7mA6b
	rSDPxmo5CWflM21/pr4j7S0CeZJZXOIEHEDDE=
Message-ID: <dcc563d10807110719qfd41e2ej6bd6b89654f4c995@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 08:19:50 -0600
From: "Scott Marlowe" <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
To: Jeff <threshar@torgo.978.org>
Subject: Re: 3ware vs Areca
Cc: "Pgsql performance" <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: <581D2333-E731-4843-BC31-39840E272C62@torgo.978.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <581D2333-E731-4843-BC31-39840E272C62@torgo.978.org>

On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 7:26 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.

What RAID level are you using?  How much cache do you have?  Write
back / battery backed? What OS and version?

Everything I've heard sys they're both fast performers.