It's irrelavent what controller, you still have to actualy write the
parity blocks, which slows down your write speed because you have to
write n+n/2 blocks. instead of just n blocks making the system write
50% more data.
RAID 5 must write 50% more data to disk therefore it will always be slower.
On 12/25/05, Michael Stone <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 05:45:20PM -0500, Ron wrote:
> >Caches help, and the bigger the cache the better, but once you are
> >doing enough writes fast enough (and that doesn't take much even with
> >a few GBs of cache) the recalculate-checksums-and-write-new-ones
> >overhead will decrease the write speed of real data. Bear in mind
> >that the HD's _raw_ write speed hasn't been decreased. Those HD's
> >are pounding away as fast as they can for you. Your _effective_ or
> >_data level_ write speed is what decreases due to overhead.
> You're overgeneralizing. Assuming a large cache and a sequential write,
> there's need be no penalty for raid 5. (For random writes you may
> need to read unrelated blocks in order to calculate parity, but for
> large sequential writes the parity blocks should all be read from
> cache.) A modern cpu can calculate parity for raid 5 on the order of
> gigabytes per second, and even crummy embedded processors can do
> hundreds of megabytes per second. You may have run into some lousy
> implementations, but you should be much more specific about what
> hardware you're talking about instead of making sweeping
> >Side Note: people often forget the other big reason to use RAID 10
> >over RAID 5. RAID 5 is always only 2 HD failures from data
> >loss. RAID 10 can lose up to 1/2 the HD's in the array w/o data loss
> >unless you get unlucky and lose both members of a RAID 1 set.
> IOW, your RAID 10 is only 2 HD failures from data loss also. If that's
> an issue you need to go with RAID 6 or add another disk to each mirror.
> Mike Stone
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: David Lang||Date: 2005-12-26 18:11:00|
|Subject: Re: What's the best hardver for PostgreSQL 8.1?|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2005-12-26 16:02:52|
|Subject: Re: vacuuming template0 gave ERROR |