From: | Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Craig A(dot) James" <cjames(at)modgraph-usa(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alan Hodgson <ahodgson(at)simkin(dot)ca>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: RAID 0 not as fast as expected |
Date: | 2006-09-14 21:58:35 |
Message-ID: | 1158271115.24726.24.camel@state.g2switchworks.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, 2006-09-14 at 16:35, Craig A. James wrote:
> Alan Hodgson wrote:
> > On Thursday 14 September 2006 11:05, "Craig A. James"
> > <cjames(at)modgraph-usa(dot)com> wrote:
> >> I'm experiment with RAID, looking for an inexpensive way to boost
> >> performance. I bought 4 Seagate 7200.9 120 GB SATA drives and two SIIG
> >> dual-port SATA cards. (NB: I don't plan to run RAID 0 in production,
> >> probably RAID 10, so no need to comment on the failure rate of RAID 0.)
> >>
> >
> > Are those PCI cards? If yes, it's just a bus bandwidth limit.
>
> Ok, that makes sense.
>
> One SATA disk = 52 MB/sec
> 4-disk RAID0 = 106 MB/sec
>
> PCI at 33 MHz x 32 bits (4 bytes) = 132 MB/sec.
>
> I guess getting to 80% of the theoretical speed is as much as I should expect.
Note that many mid to high end motherboards have multiple PCI busses /
channels, and you could put a card in each one and get > 132MByte/sec on
them.
But for a database, sequential throughput is almost never the real
problem. It's usually random access that counts, and for that a RAID 10
is a pretty good choice.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Guillaume Smet | 2006-09-14 22:24:43 | Re: High CPU Load |
Previous Message | Dave Cramer | 2006-09-14 21:53:09 | Re: Vacuums on large busy databases |