From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: which dual-CPU hardware/OS is fastest for PostgreSQL? |
Date: | 2005-01-11 04:31:22 |
Message-ID: | 41E3569A.4030102@commandprompt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
>
>RAID controllers tend to use i960 or StrongARM CPUs that run at speeds
>that _aren't_ all that impressive. With software RAID, you can take
>advantage of the _enormous_ increases in the speed of the main CPU.
>
>I don't know so much about FreeBSD's handling of this, but on Linux,
>there's pretty strong indication that _SOFTWARE_ RAID is faster than
>hardware RAID.
>
>
Unless something has changed though, you can't run raid 10
with linux software raid and raid 5 sucks for heavy writes.
J
>It has the further merit that you're not dependent on some disk
>formatting scheme that is only compatible with the model of RAID
>controller that you've got, where if the controller breaks down, you
>likely have to rebuild the whole array from scratch and your data is
>toast.
>
>The assumptions change if you're looking at really high end disk
>arrays, but that's certainly another story.
>
>
--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com - http://www.commandprompt.com
PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
jd.vcf | text/x-vcard | 285 bytes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2005-01-11 06:35:18 | Re: which dual-CPU hardware/OS is fastest for PostgreSQL? |
Previous Message | Christopher Browne | 2005-01-11 04:25:04 | Re: which dual-CPU hardware/OS is fastest for PostgreSQL? |