From: | Adam Witney <awitney(at)sghms(dot)ac(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Postgresql on software RAID |
Date: | 2003-12-17 16:15:29 |
Message-ID: | BC0631A1.2A65C%awitney@sghms.ac.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On 17/12/03 3:45 pm, "scott.marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Robert Creager wrote:
>
>> When grilled further on (Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:30:04 -0600),
>> Patrick Spinler <spinler(at)kmtel(dot)com> confessed:
>>
>>>
>>> According to the theory they expound, a database with any significant
>>> write activity whatsoever should never be on raid 5, but instead be on
>>> raid 0+1.
>>>
>>
>> Kind of related and a point of reference. We use ClearCase and have many
>> multiple Gb vob's(databases). We were using RAID-5, but had to back off to
>> RAID
>> 0+1 because of performance reasons (which was indicated in the manual, once
>> you
>> read it...). This would happen around 1-2Gb's vob size. Our usage of CC
>> provides heavy writing activity to the underlying dB.
>>
>> I don't know what kind of dB engine Atria->Rational->IBM has implemented
>> underneath, or even it it would look like a dB to someone who knew the
>> difference...
>
> Just wondering, was that on hardware or software RAID5, and if hardware
> did it have battery backed cache controllers? Makes a huge difference. I
> would never use SW RAID5 for heavily written databases.
Hi Scott,
What level of activity would you call "heavily written"?
Thanks
Adam
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | scott.marlowe | 2003-12-17 16:16:38 | Re: Postgresql on software RAID |
Previous Message | Van L. Loggins | 2003-12-17 15:48:58 | Question about backing up PostgreSQL databases |