1 |
Supposedly the Areca cards offer much better RAID 5 performance. Since |
2 |
there is a driver in the -mm tree now I'm about to start testing a |
3 |
24-port Areca SATA card. I have *no* experience with them as of yet so |
4 |
I can't recommend them. |
5 |
|
6 |
http://www.areca.com.tw/index/html/ |
7 |
|
8 |
-J |
9 |
|
10 |
-- |
11 |
On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 09:22:34AM -0400, Matt Randolph wrote: |
12 |
> That's valuable information indeed. Since migrating from Windows to |
13 |
> Gentoo I have had to abandon an old PATA RAID 5 card because its Linux |
14 |
> drivers haven't been maintained in years. I had thought about going the |
15 |
> 3Ware route, so I'm glad to hear about your experiences with their |
16 |
> cards. I guess I have some more homework to do. Thanks for the heads-up! |
17 |
> |
18 |
> Joshua Hoblitt wrote: |
19 |
> |
20 |
> >I have a large number (more then a dozen) 3Ware 8500 and 9500 cards. |
21 |
> >The majority of these are 12-port SATA cards with RAID 5 volumes on |
22 |
> >them. |
23 |
> > |
24 |
> >Three quick observations: |
25 |
> > |
26 |
> >* Software RAID 5 on Linux WILL NOT remap bad blocks/sectors like a |
27 |
> >hardware RAID controller. If you care about your data, software RAID |
28 |
> >simply isn't an option. |
29 |
> > |
30 |
> >* The RAID 5 performance of 3Ware controllers is terrible. The 9500 |
31 |
> >series cards can push 50-55MB/s with xfs and in the neighborhood of |
32 |
> >45MB/s with ext3 (with an enlarged journal, etc.) for sequential writes, |
33 |
> >random I/O is even worse. The 8500 cards are about 10% slower compared |
34 |
> >to the 9500 once you fill up the on-card cache. |
35 |
> > |
36 |
> >* Neither xfs or ext3 are reliable on volumes greater then 2TB. Nor can |
37 |
> >fdisk even partition them (but lvm2 can handle them). |
38 |
> > |
39 |
> >Cheers, |
40 |
> > |
41 |
> >-J |
42 |
> > |
43 |
> > |
44 |
> -- |
45 |
> gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |
46 |
> |