Hot answers tagged

3

That's a pretty old RAID controller (those were introduced in 2010, I think?), and its throughput characteristics were designed for spinning disks, not SSDs. You might be bottlenecking on older gen SATA, or the RAID controller itself - but either way, that RAID controller isn't worth wasting your time on, performance-wise.


3

The general advice for this is to maximize your system RAM (ARC), and then add L2ARC if the need is there. This can be measured using the arcstat command in your server. Something like: arcstat.py -f "time,read,hit%,hits,miss%,miss,arcsz,c" 1 Where the output shows the time number of reads/second, the hit ratio, the number of hits/misses, and the ...


2

Your pool black currently consists of two mirrored WD10JFCX drives, which according to Western Digital's spec sheet are: 5400 rpm (rotational latency about 5 ms on average, 11 ms worst case) 16 MB cache 1 TB 2.5" form factor SATA 6 Gb/s (SATA 3) Neither the 5400 rpm rotation speed nor the puny 16 MB on-drive cache is conducive to highest performance, and ...


1

This should be a comment, but its a bit long. with the database stopped It's a very unusual database which runs optimally on RAID 0 It's also somewhat unusual to spend so much money on a server and plan no resilliency for the storage. But to then compound that, by using raid 0 means you are three times more likely to loose all your data than with a ...


1

If you're running firmware released in the past few years (latest = safest bet), non-Dell branded/certified drives are not "blocked", and the controller will use them just as any other SATA SSD. Assuming PNY's SSDs properly adhere to SATA specifications, you're not likely to see any compatibility issues. A problem you may want to test for and be aware of ...


1

Your computer's manual shows that it supports SSD and SATA so that is a big yes. They are compatible without any doubt.



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible