From owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 27 07:00:46 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 086D316A4CE for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2004 07:00:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.freebsdsystems.com (mx1.FreeBSDsystems.COM [216.138.197.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A04643D1F for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2004 07:00:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from lnb@FreeBSDsystems.COM) Received: (qmail 65273 invoked by uid 0); 27 Feb 2004 14:59:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.0.5?) (lnb@216.235.9.82) by 216.138.197.66 with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 27 Feb 2004 14:59:52 -0000 From: Lanny Baron To: Palle Girgensohn In-Reply-To: <15430000.1077893552@durian.pingpong.net> References: <20040225200421.0BC4443D2D@mx1.FreeBSD.org> <15430000.1077893552@durian.pingpong.net> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: FreeBSD Systems, Inc. Message-Id: <1077894043.10415.501.camel@panda> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:00:43 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: Artem Koutchine cc: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Choosing Serial ATA RAID 5 controller for FBSD 4.9 X-BeenThere: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of FreeBSD hardware List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 15:00:46 -0000 For every 1 SCSI disk failure, you will get about 10 ide disk failures. The MTBF for SCSI drives is ~ 50% of ide. IDE or ata disks are used in desktops and in Servers. If one is using a Server for Samba (file & print) services then ata disks are fine. As long as you are using a decent (3ware) ata/sata raid controller. SCSI disks are much more suited to e-commerce (database) and other high i/o bound or related services. The ata/sata disks we use anyway, have 3 year warranties while SCSI disks have 5 year warranties. Lanny On Fri, 2004-02-27 at 09:52, Palle Girgensohn wrote: > --On Wednesday, February 25, 2004 15:04:23 -0500 Simon > wrote: > > > > > Have you tried searching the archives? this was discussed several times. > > 3ware works fine. While you are not explaining what heavy load means, > > you might want to go with SCSI RAID instead. You may not save as much > > as you think with IDE in a long run and get a much better performance if > > you have heavy I/O (heavy use of database). > > Simon, > > A bit off-topic, what do you mean "may not save as much ... with IDE in a > long run"? > > Is their MTBF worse, or are you just relating to performance? > > /Palle > > > > > > -Simon > > > > On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 13:40:06 +0300, Artem Koutchine wrote: > > > >> We are trying to build a havy load web 2U server using > >> Serial ATA RAID 5 controller. The server will run FreeBSD 4.9 > >> and we need a raid card which is supported by 4.9. > >> Another 'must' for the card is that it must be a real hardware > >> RAID 5. Other 'musts' - the card must be LP (low prifile > >> pci card), support PCI 64bit, be real SATA, not just a bridge. > >> > >> Also, it should have nice cache size. > >> > >> For far there are only two candidates: > >> 1) 3Ware 8506-4 > >> 2) Adaptec 2410SA > >> > >> IFAIK there are people running FBSD 4.9 on > >> 3Ware 8506-4, however, W3ware 8xxx card are not listed > >> in the supported hardware for 4.9-RELEASE. Is it just > >> a mistake or it is really not supported or not fully supported? > >> Also, 3Ware 85xx oficially does not have any cache, however, > >> i have found somewhere that it does have it and the cache is 2MB, > >> which is puny. Is it a big deal? Does it really affect perfomance (the > >> card will be running at least 3 drives each with 4-8MB of cache on its > >> own). > >> > >> Adaptec 2410SA seems to be just perfect. Real hardware, 64MB Cache, > >> raid level migration, auto rebuilding and other features. However, i have > >> only > >> some one person running it on 5.2. Can it be run on 4.9? How stable are > >> the drivers? What is better - stay with 4.9 and 3ware or try using 5.2 in > >> production environment with Adaptec? > >> > >> The server will go in production by the end of april 2004, maybe 5.2 > >> will be stable enough by then to run it in production? > >> > >> Any thoughts and comments will be apriciated. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Artem > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org mailing list > >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hardware > >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to > >> "freebsd-hardware-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hardware > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > > "freebsd-hardware-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hardware > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hardware-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" -- =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= Lanny Baron Proud to be 100% FreeBSD http://www.FreeBSDsystems.COM =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=