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

From: Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>
To: "'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 22:40:06
Message-ID: Pine.GSO.4.64.0712261733390.10252@westnet.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007, david(at)lang(dot)hm wrote:

> yes, the two linux software implementations only read from one disk, but I
> have seen hardware implementations where it reads from both drives, and if
> they disagree it returns a read error rather then possibly invalid data (it's
> up to the admin to figure out which drive is bad at that point).

Right, many of the old implementations did that; even the Wikipedia
article on this subject mentions it in the "RAID 1 performance" section:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_RAID_levels

The thing that changed is on modern drives, the internal error detection
and correction is good enough that if you lose a sector, the drive will
normally figure that out at the firmware level and return a read error
rather than bad data. That lowers of the odds of one drive becoming
corrupted and returning a bad sector as a result enough that the overhead
of reading from both drives isn't considered as important. I'm not aware
of a current card that does that but I wouldn't be surprised to discover
one existed.

--
* 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 david 2007-12-26 22:52:20 Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10
Previous Message Mark Mielke 2007-12-26 22:33:07 Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10