| From: | Bill Cunningham <billc(at)ballydev(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: databases and RAID ... |
| Date: | 2002-05-26 15:00:50 |
| Message-ID: | 3CF0F8A2.5090404@ballydev.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>Tom Lane writes:
>
>
>
>>Is there any rhyme or reason to the various "RAID n" designations?
>>Or were they just invented on the spur of the moment?
>>
>>
>
>The paper that introduced the term RAID used a numerical classification
>for the various schemes. (So I guess the answer is yes.) The traditional
>levels are:
>
>0 Nonredundant
>1 Mirrored
>2 Memory-style ECC
>3 Bit-interleaved parity
>4 Block-interleaved parity
>5 Block-interleaved distributed parity
>[Hennessy & Patterson]
>
>There are also other levels. One poster talked about RAID 10 which
>appears to be a mirrored RAID 5.
>
>
>
No Raid 10 is Raid 1 + 0 its strong points are faster writes but slower
reads.
- Bill
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | lee | 2002-05-26 15:15:45 | Re: no pg_hba.conf |
| Previous Message | Niclas Gustafsson | 2002-05-26 14:55:34 | Problem with ucred.h building 7.2.1 |