Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on

From: "Bjoern Metzdorf" <bm(at)turtle-entertainment(dot)de>
To: "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on
Date: 2002-11-21 21:57:59
Message-ID: 016901c291a9$0f23cc20$0564a8c0@toolteam.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-adminpgsql-performance
> Generally RAID 5.  RAID 1 is only faster if you are doing a lot of
> parellel reads.  I.e. you have something like 10 agents reading at the
> same time.  RAID 5 also works better under parallel load than a single
> drive.

yep, but write performance sucks.

> The fastest of course, is multidrive RAID0.  But there's no redundancy.

With 4 drives I'd always go for raid 10, fast and secure

> Oddly, my testing doesn't show any appreciable performance increase in
> linux by layering RAID5 or 1 over RAID0 or vice versa, something that
> is usually faster under most setups.

Is this with linux software raid? raid10 is not significantly faster? cant
believe that...

Regards,
Bjoern


In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Wei WengDate: 2002-11-21 22:23:57
Subject: Re: performance of insert/delete/update
Previous:From: scott.marloweDate: 2002-11-21 21:49:18
Subject: Re: performance of insert/delete/update

pgsql-admin by date

Next:From: scott.marloweDate: 2002-11-21 22:37:47
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on
Previous:From: scott.marloweDate: 2002-11-21 21:24:00
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group