Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10

Mark Mielke wrote:
> Shane Ambler wrote:
>> So in a perfect setup (probably 1+0) 4x 300MB/s SATA drives could
>> deliver 1200MB/s of data to RAM, which is also assuming that all 4
>> channels have their own data path to RAM and aren't sharing.
>> (anyone know how segregated the on board controllers such as these
>> are?)
>> (do some pci controllers offer better throughput?)
>> We all know that doesn't happen in the real world ;-) Let's say we
>> are restricted to 80% - 1000MB/s - and some of that (10%) gets used
>> by the system - so we end up with 900MB/s delivered off disk to
>> postgres - that would still be more than the perfect rate at which
>> 2x 300MB/s drives can deliver.
>
> I achieve something closer to +20% - +60% over the theoretical
> performance of a single disk with my four disk RAID 1+0 partitions.

If a good 4 disk SATA RAID 1+0 can achieve 60% more throughput than a
single SATA disk, what sort of percentage can be achieved from a good
SCSI controller with 4 disks in RAID 1+0?

Are we still hitting the bus limits at this point or can a SCSI RAID
still outperform in raw data throughput?

I would still think that SCSI would still provide the better reliability
that it always has, but performance wise is it still in front of SATA?

--

Shane Ambler
pgSQL (at) Sheeky (dot) Biz

Get Sheeky @ http://Sheeky.Biz