| From: | "Bjoern Metzdorf" <bm(at)turtle-entertainment(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on |
| Date: | 2002-11-21 21:57:59 |
| Message-ID: | 016901c291a9$0f23cc20$0564a8c0@toolteam.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-performance |
> Generally RAID 5. RAID 1 is only faster if you are doing a lot of
> parellel reads. I.e. you have something like 10 agents reading at the
> same time. RAID 5 also works better under parallel load than a single
> drive.
yep, but write performance sucks.
> The fastest of course, is multidrive RAID0. But there's no redundancy.
With 4 drives I'd always go for raid 10, fast and secure
> Oddly, my testing doesn't show any appreciable performance increase in
> linux by layering RAID5 or 1 over RAID0 or vice versa, something that
> is usually faster under most setups.
Is this with linux software raid? raid10 is not significantly faster? cant
believe that...
Regards,
Bjoern
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | scott.marlowe | 2002-11-21 22:37:47 | Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on |
| Previous Message | scott.marlowe | 2002-11-21 21:24:00 | Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Wei Weng | 2002-11-21 22:23:57 | Re: performance of insert/delete/update |
| Previous Message | scott.marlowe | 2002-11-21 21:49:18 | Re: performance of insert/delete/update |