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

Re: Postgresql on software RAID

From: "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>
To: Robert Creager <Robert_Creager(at)LogicalChaos(dot)org>
Cc: <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Postgresql on software RAID
Date: 2003-12-17 15:45:43
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.33.0312170844510.10028-100000@css120.ihs.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin
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.


In response to

Responses

pgsql-admin by date

Next:From: Van L. LogginsDate: 2003-12-17 15:48:58
Subject: Question about backing up PostgreSQL databases
Previous:From: Michael GillDate: 2003-12-17 15:30:16
Subject: Restrict access to system tables

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