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

From: Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>
To: Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc>
Cc: Fernando Hevia <fhevia(at)ip-tel(dot)com(dot)ar>, "'pgsql-performance'" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10
Date: 2007-12-26 18:13:56
Message-ID: Pine.GSO.4.64.0712261311190.11546@westnet.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007, Mark Mielke wrote:

> I believe hardware RAID 5 is also horrible, but since the hardware hides
> it from the application, a hardware RAID 5 user might not care.

Typically anything doing hardware RAID 5 also has a reasonable sized write
cache on the controller, which softens the problem a bit. As soon as you
exceed what it can buffer you're back to suffering again.

--
* Greg Smith gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Smith 2007-12-26 18:23:58 Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances
Previous Message Chris Hoover 2007-12-26 17:36:15 Anyone running on RHEL Cluster?