Re: Hardware recommendation: which is best

On 12/09/2007, Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, Phoenix Kiula wrote:
>
> > Scenario 1, SATAII:
> > - Server: Asus RS120-E4/PA4 Dedicated Server
> > - CPU: Single -- Intel Quad Core Xeon Processor x3210 Processor 2.13Ghz
> > - RAM: 4Gb DDR2 Memory 667Mhz
> > - Hard disk: 4 x Seagate ES SATAII HardDrive 7200RPM 250Gb (Total 500Gb)
> > - Raid 10: 3Ware Raid 9650SE: http://www.acnc.com/04_01_10.html
>
> The typical 9650SE will normally come with 256MB of cache (the 2-port
> version has 128MB, the 24-port on 512MB; you're probably getting one of
> the middle ones which all have 256).  This is a fast controller (sometimes
> people complain about its RAID 5 which isn't an issue for you), it has
> good drivers for most popular operating systems, and as long as you make
> sure you're buying it from day one with the optional Battery Backup Unit
> (BBU) so you can safely run it in write-back cache mode the performance of
> this setup should be excellent for database use.
>
> > - Server: IBM e326m 1U Rackmount server
> > - CPU: Double -- Opteron 275 is 2 x 2.2GHz, with 2 x 1MB L2 Cache
> > - RAM: 4Gb PC3200 ECC Registered
> > - Hard disk: 2 x 300GB SCSI 10K RPM
> > - Raid 1: LSI Logic
>
> As far as I can tell IBM model uses the LSI Logic LSI53C1030 Fusion-MPT
> Ultra320 SCSI Controller, usually abbreviated as the LSI 1030:
> http://www.lsi.com/files/docs/marketing_docs/storage_stand_prod/raid/lsi53c1030_pb.pdf
>
> This is a very basic SCSI controller, not one of the LSI MegaRAID
> controllers that are often recommended by people here.  This particular
> model appears to have no write cache as all, which means you'll get poor
> performance with INSERTs under PostgreSQL.  A quick search suggests it has
> a general history of performance issues, possibly related to that; two
> example reports are for Linux and FreeBSD are:
>
> http://stateless.geek.nz/2005/02/24/lsi-1030-raid-status-on-linux/ (may
> have to grab this one from the Google cache instead:
>
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:eMkvpB66H9QJ:stateless.geek.nz/2005/02/24/lsi-1030-raid-status-on-linux/+lsi+1030+raid+controller&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us
> )
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-scsi/2005-January/001646.html
>
> Based on the well known strengths of the 3Ware controller vs. what appears
> to be a very weak LSI controller, I would expect the Asus system above to
> have massively better performance for your intended application than this
> particular IBM one--even though it's possible the real-world performance
> of the CPU/memory might be a little better on the Opteron box.  The fact
> that it will have 2X as many disks will just increase its lead.  And now
> you know why everyone wanted such specific information!



Thank you for the detailed explanation Greg. Very, very useful!

Just to confirm -- why do you say "[Opteron] will have 2X as many
disks"? In the dual-Opteron setup above I have 2 hard disks with
RAID1, whereas in the single-Xeon quad-core setup I have 4 disks with
RAID 10.