Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 15:04:23 -0500 From: "Simon" <simon@optinet.com> To: "Artem Koutchine" <matrix@itlegion.ru>, "freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Choosing Serial ATA RAID 5 controller for FBSD 4.9 Message-ID: <20040225200421.0BC4443D2D@mx1.FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <001101c3fb8c$fb5b1730$0c00a8c0@artem>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 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" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040225200421.0BC4443D2D>