| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: databases and RAID ... |
| Date: | 2002-05-25 19:29:01 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0205252035260.988-100000@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Tom Lane writes:
> Is there any rhyme or reason to the various "RAID n" designations?
> Or were they just invented on the spur of the moment?
The paper that introduced the term RAID used a numerical classification
for the various schemes. (So I guess the answer is yes.) The traditional
levels are:
0 Nonredundant
1 Mirrored
2 Memory-style ECC
3 Bit-interleaved parity
4 Block-interleaved parity
5 Block-interleaved distributed parity
[Hennessy & Patterson]
There are also other levels. One poster talked about RAID 10 which
appears to be a mirrored RAID 5.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ragnar Kjørstad | 2002-05-25 19:38:39 | Re: databases and RAID ... |
| Previous Message | Fred Moyer | 2002-05-25 19:24:30 | Re: databases and RAID ... |