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

Re: databases and RAID ...

From: Bill Cunningham <billc(at)ballydev(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: databases and RAID ...
Date: 2002-05-26 15:00:50
Message-ID: 3CF0F8A2.5090404@ballydev.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin
Peter Eisentraut wrote:

>Tom Lane writes:
>
>  
>
>>Is there any rhyme or reason to the various "RAID n" designations?
>>Or were they just invented on the spur of the moment?
>>    
>>
>
>The paper that introduced the term RAID used a numerical classification
>for the various schemes.  (So I guess the answer is yes.)  The traditional
>levels are:
>
>0  Nonredundant
>1  Mirrored
>2  Memory-style ECC
>3  Bit-interleaved parity
>4  Block-interleaved parity
>5  Block-interleaved distributed parity
>[Hennessy & Patterson]
>
>There are also other levels.  One poster talked about RAID 10 which
>appears to be a mirrored RAID 5.
>
>  
>
No Raid 10 is Raid 1 + 0 its strong points are faster writes but slower 
reads.

- Bill



In response to

Responses

pgsql-admin by date

Next:From: leeDate: 2002-05-26 15:15:45
Subject: Re: no pg_hba.conf
Previous:From: Niclas GustafssonDate: 2002-05-26 14:55:34
Subject: Problem with ucred.h building 7.2.1

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