>>>>> "GS" == Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
GS> "scott.marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> writes:
GS> But you have to actually test your setup in practice to see if it
GS> hurts. A big data warehousing system will be faster under RAID5
GS> than under RAID1+0 because of the extra disks in the
GS> stripeset. The more disks in the stripeset the more bandwidth you
Anyone have ideas on 14 spindles? I just ordered a disk subsystem
with 14 high speed (U320 15kRPM) SCSI disks to hook up with a dell
PERC3/DC controller (only 128MB cache, though).
My plan was to do RAID10, but I think I'll play with RAID5 again and
see which gives me the best performance. Unfortunatly, it is
difficult to recreate the highly fragmented tables I have now (vacuum
full takes over 14 hours on one of the tables) so I'm not sure how to
best compare them.
Vivek Khera, Ph.D. Khera Communications, Inc.
Internet: khera(at)kciLink(dot)com Rockville, MD +1-240-453-8497
AIM: vivekkhera Y!: vivek_khera http://www.khera.org/~vivek/
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Vivek Khera||Date: 2003-07-29 15:22:40|
|Subject: Re: Mapping a database completly into Memory|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2003-07-29 14:09:15|
|Subject: Re: Why performance improvement on converting subselect to a function ? |