Re: Intel SRCS16 SATA raid? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Mohan, Ross
Subject Re: Intel SRCS16 SATA raid?
Date
Msg-id CC74E7E10A8A054798B6611BD1FEF4D30625DA59@vamail01.thexchange.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Intel SRCS16 SATA raid?  (Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>)
Responses Re: Intel SRCS16 SATA raid?  ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>)
List pgsql-performance
sorry, don't remember whether it's SCSI or SATA II, but IIRC
the Areca controllers are just stellar for things.

If you do get SATA for db stuff..especially multiuser...i still
haven't seen anything to indicate an across-the-board primacy
for SATA over SCSI. I'd go w/SCSI, or if SATA for $$$ reasons, I'd
be sure to have many spindles and RAID 10.

my 0.02. I'm surely not an expert of any kind.





-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Greg Stark
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 10:55 AM
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: [PERFORM] Intel SRCS16 SATA raid?



Our vendor is trying to sell us on an Intel SRCS16 SATA raid controller instead of the 3ware one.

Poking around it seems this does come with Linux drivers and there is a battery backup option. So it doesn't seem to be
completelyinsane. 

Anyone have any experience with these controllers?

I'm also wondering about whether I'm better off with one of these SATA raid controllers or just going with SCSI drives.

--
greg


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Richard van den Berg
Date:
Subject: Re: Foreign key slows down copy/insert
Next
From: Christopher Kings-Lynne
Date:
Subject: Re: Foreign key slows down copy/insert