From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Mario Splivalo <mario(dot)splivalo(at)mobart(dot)hr> |
Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Server Hardware Configuration |
Date: | 2005-11-21 16:59:24 |
Message-ID: | 20051121165924.GT19279@pervasive.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 10:34:36AM +0100, Mario Splivalo wrote:
> > RAID5 generally doesn't make for a fast database. The problem is that
> > there is a huge amount of overhead everytime you go to write something
> > out to a RAID5 array. With careful tuning of the background writer you
> > might be able to avoid some of that penalty, though your read
> > performance will likely still be affected by the write overhead.
>
> RAID5 was not ment to improve performance, but to minimize disaster and
> downtime when your hard disk dies. We're using RAID5 with postgres. In
> the last 3 years we changed 5 disks, but the system downtime was zero
> minutes.
And the same would have been true with RAID10. In fact, RAID10 is more
reliable than RAID5; depending on what drives fail it's possible to lose
up to half of a RAID10 array without any data loss. If you ever lose
more than 2 drives at once with RAID5, your data is gone.
--
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-11-21 17:12:25 | Re: Server Hardware Configuration |
Previous Message | Jaime Casanova | 2005-11-21 16:51:54 | Re: Postgres Database slow |