Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on faster

From: "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>
To: "Rajesh Kumar Mallah(dot)" <mallah(at)trade-india(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on faster
Date: 2002-11-21 17:32:05
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.33.0211211029390.23081-100000@css120.ihs.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-adminpgsql-performance
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Rajesh Kumar Mallah. wrote:

> 
> Hi folks,
> 
> I have two options:
> 3*18 GB 10,000 RPM Ultra160 Dual Channel SCSI  controller + H/W Raid 5
> and 
> 2*36 GB 15,000 RPM Ultra320 Dual Channel SCSI and no RAID
> 
> Does anyone opinions *performance wise*  the pros and cons of above 
> two options.
> 
> please take in consideration in latter case its higher RPM and better
> SCSI interface. 

Does the OS you're running on support software RAID?  If so the dual 36 
gigs in a RAID0 software would be fastest, and in a RAID1 would still be 
pretty fast plus they would be redundant.

Depending on your queries, there may not be a lot of difference between 
running the 3*18 hw RAID or the 2*36 setup, especially if most of your 
data can fit into memory on the server.

Generally, the 2*36 should be faster for writing, and the 3*18 should be 
about even for reads, maybe a little faster.


In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: scott.marloweDate: 2002-11-21 17:32:44
Subject: Re: vacuum full
Previous:From: Chris RuprechtDate: 2002-11-21 17:19:35
Subject: Re: H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on faster HDDs

pgsql-admin by date

Next:From: Rajesh Kumar Mallah.Date: 2002-11-21 17:46:55
Subject: Re: H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on faster HDDs
Previous:From: Chris RuprechtDate: 2002-11-21 17:19:35
Subject: Re: H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on faster HDDs

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group