Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 09:56:35 -0500 From: Nathan Vidican <nvidican@wmptl.com> To: Olaf Greve <o.greve@axis.nl> Cc: amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Hardware RAID support? Which controller best to use? Message-ID: <437DEBA3.7060308@wmptl.com> In-Reply-To: <437DE855.4010006@axis.nl> References: <3.0.1.32.20051118060718.00d655b8@pop.redshift.com> <437DE855.4010006@axis.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Olaf Greve wrote: > Hi Ray, Nathan (and others via cc per list), > > First off: thanks a lot for your answers, they're definitly very helpful! > > I have forwarded the messages to the person who'll have to make the > final call for ordering the hardware. > > I'm trying to get him towards ordering a 3Ware-Escalade 9500S-4 RAID > controller (or possibly the -8 or -12 one). > I have a 9500S-4 here, with 5 250GB RAID edition drives attached to it. - Works VERY well, have never had any issues with it at all, running RAID 5 array on it. > One thing which is of importance is that their budget may not allow for > a really high end server, so they may have to decide to buy a semi > high-end server. This then may result in them taking Athlons instead of > Opterons, and it may result in a MoBo with 32-bits PCI slots instead of > 64-bits PCI slots. Judging from the pictures of the 9500S it has a > 64-bits PCI slot, but it looks like it might be compatible with the > 32-bits slots as well (at a performance penalty, of course). > Would you happen to know if that's indeed possible, or whether they'd > better choose a different RAID controller? > 3Ware cards all work 64/32-bit PCI slots. Also... Cheap Opteron's can be had, even new hardware; look at Sun x2100's, starting at like $750 complete... or eBay a clone ;) You should be able to put together what you're looking for under $1000, plus the cost of your disks.... you didn't really mention what kinda load you'll be anticipating, connections/bandwidth capabilities/etc... but if you'd like to provide more specific requirements, (ie: 70 clients connecting from Windows machines to SQL for entry/updates, plus 3 webservers querying average of say 5-10 users each...) then we (the list) may better be able to guide you. > Regarding the MySQL versions and their settings: tnx for giving me > enough comfort to indeed give heavy preference for the FreeBSD amd64 > version. Will (source) installing the version from the ports do, or do > you mean something else when you say that you compiled MySQL yourself? > Personally, looking into Sun's new x2100 for a pure mysql server setup over here, (cost $745 single Opteron 146/1GB ecc/80gb s-ata)... it'll be an upgrade to a dual PIII proliant box doing the job right now, (10800 connections per day, cascading updates accross 4 tables/180 fields of data about 3 times every 8 seconds). Currently mysql takes about 35-40% CPU utilization; to further add to your 'windows vs freebsd' - if used solely for mysql, this same machine couldn't handle this load under windows - period. > Regarding the benchmark results: I'd love to receive them. Can you > perhaps send them off-list to me? > > Regarding W*nd*ws vs. FreeBSD: I love your remark; I wonder if the > person I forwarded it to can laugh as loudly about it as I did. :D > > Finally regarding SCSI vs. SATA: > >> I've had far better luck using SATA over SCSI in the recent couple >> of years. >> We have several machines setup using FreeBSD and 3Ware RAID 0+1 that >> routinely >> run with no problems and uptimes of 200 to 300 days at a time. > Hands down, SCSI is a stable and solid performer... but compare cost per meg, both in terms of storage amounts, and bandwidth - and S-ATA takes it. > > Very interesting to know. At present, I myself have a 754 socket AMD > Athlon 64 3.2 GHz (IIRC), running FreeBSD 5.4 release AMD-64, with an > Adaptec 2200S U320 SCSI RAID controller with 4 Maxtor Atlas 10KIV 36GB > drives attached to it in RAID-10 mode. So far it works a charm (though I > too had to effectively downgrade it to U160 due to the lack of 64-bits > PCI slots, grrr). I hope it'll keep performing well (so far uptimes in > the order magnitude you mention have been working fine for me as well on > SCSI - Adaptec 2100S RAID set-ups in my (now) fall-back server, and ever > after installing the AMD-64 one 34 days ago I haven't had to restart it > so far)... > > Yet, it'll be interesting to keep an eye on the SATA RAID performance > and costs. With such uptimes SATA will surely become (if it hasn't > already become so, that is) a very good alternative for SCSI. > > Cheers! > Olafo > > -- Nathan Vidican nvidican@wmptl.com Windsor Match Plate & Tool Ltd. http://www.wmptl.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?437DEBA3.7060308>