Re: Hardware related question: 3ware 9500S
От | Ted Byers |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Hardware related question: 3ware 9500S |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 021701c65e5c$6f1eced0$6401a8c0@RnDworkstation обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Hardware related question: 3ware 9500S (Janning Vygen <vygen@gmx.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: Hardware related question: 3ware 9500S
Re: Hardware related question: 3ware 9500S |
Список | pgsql-general |
> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure@gmail.com> > To: "Janning Vygen" <vygen@gmx.de> > Cc: <pgsql-general@postgresql.org> > Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:31 PM > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Hardware related question: 3ware 9500S > [snip] > > - I want to know if 3ware 9500 S is recommended or if its one of those > > controllers which sucks. > > escalade is a fairly full featured raid controller for the price. > consider it the ford taurus of raid controllers, it's functional and > practical but not sexy. Their S line is not native sata but operates > over a pata->sata bridge. Stay away from raid 5. > Hi Merlin Why? What's wrong with raid 5? I could well be wrong (given how little attention I have paid to hardware over the past few years because of a focus on developing software), but I was under the impression that of the raid options available, raid 5 with hot swappable drives provided good data protection and performance at a reasonably low cost. Is the problem with the concept of raid 5, or the common implementations? Do you have a recommendation regarding whether the raid array is built into the server running the RDBMS (in our case PostgreSQL), or located in a network appliance dedicated to storing the data managed by the RDBMS? If you were asked to design a subnet that provides the best possible performance and protection of the data, but without gold-plating anything, what would you do? How much redundancy would you build in, and at what granularity? Ted
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: