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

Re: Tyan Thunder MB for postgres server

From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>
To: pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Tyan Thunder MB for postgres server
Date: 2004-12-16 19:50:36
Message-ID: 20041216195036.GC5009@phlogiston.dyndns.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 11:14:03PM -0800, William Yu wrote:
> 
> I'm not sure why people say one is better than the other. Both will 
> survive the loss of 2 drives -- they're just different drives.

Partly, I think, people who've used both hate 0+1 because of the
recovery cost.  In most 0+1 arrangements (I'm aware of none which
don't do this), you have to re-sync the entire thing in case you lose
even one drive.  Performance really suffers at that point.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan  | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
I remember when computers were frustrating because they *did* exactly what 
you told them to.  That actually seems sort of quaint now.
		--J.D. Baldwin

In response to

pgsql-admin by date

Next:From: Mário GamitoDate: 2004-12-16 20:55:29
Subject: chroot PostgreSQL
Previous:From: Michael FuhrDate: 2004-12-16 18:54:26
Subject: Re: Notifications

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