Re: Slow restoration question

They are not equivalent. As I understand it, RAID 0+1 performs about
the same as RAID 10 when everything is working, but degrades much less
nicely in the presence of a single failed drive, and is more likely to
suffer catastrophic data loss if multiple drives fail.

-- Mark

On Tue, 2006-05-02 at 12:40 -0600, Brendan Duddridge wrote:
> Everyone here always says that RAID 5 isn't good for Postgres. We
> have an Apple Xserve RAID configured with RAID 5. We chose RAID 5
> because Apple said their Xserve RAID was "optimized" for RAID 5. Not
> sure if we made the right decision though. They give an option for
> formatting as RAID 0+1. Is that the same as RAID 10 that everyone
> talks about? Or is it the reverse?
>
> Thanks,
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Brendan Duddridge | CTO | 403-277-5591 x24 | brendan(at)clickspace(dot)com
>
> ClickSpace Interactive Inc.
> Suite L100, 239 - 10th Ave. SE
> Calgary, AB T2G 0V9
>
> http://www.clickspace.com
>
> On May 2, 2006, at 11:16 AM, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 05:14:41PM +0930, Eric Lam wrote:
> >> all dumpfiles total about 17Gb. It has been running for 50ish hrs
> >> and up
> >> to about the fourth file (5-6 ish Gb) and this is on a raid 5 server.
> >
> > RAID5 generally doesn't bode too well for performance; that could be
> > part of the issue.
> > --
> > Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
> > Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
> > vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of
> > broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
> >
> > http://archives.postgresql.org
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
> choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
> match