From: | "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "hubert depesz lubaczewski" <depesz(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Huge Data sets, simple queries |
Date: | 2006-01-30 19:48:49 |
Message-ID: | C003ADA1.1B4A0%llonergan@greenplum.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Depesz,
On 1/30/06 9:53 AM, "hubert depesz lubaczewski" <depesz(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> double the performance on a reasonable number of drives.
>
> how many is reasonable?
What I mean by that is: given a set of disks N, the read performance of RAID
will be equal to the drive read rate A times the number of drives used for
reading by the RAID algorithm. In the case of RAID5, that number is (N-1),
so the read rate is A x (N-1). In the case of RAID10, that number is N/2,
so the read rate is A x (N/2). So, the ratio of read performance
RAID5/RAID10 is (N-1)/(N/2) = 2 x (N-1)/N. For numbers of drives, this
ratio looks like this:
N RAID5/RAID10
3 1.33
6 1.67
8 1.75
14 1.86
So - I think reasonable would be 6-8, which are common disk configurations.
- Luke
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-01-30 20:10:25 | Re: Where is my bottleneck? |
Previous Message | hubert depesz lubaczewski | 2006-01-30 17:53:29 | Re: Huge Data sets, simple queries |