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
>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
In response to
pgsql-admin by date
|Next:||From: lee||Date: 2002-05-26 15:15:45|
|Subject: Re: no pg_hba.conf|
|Previous:||From: Niclas Gustafsson||Date: 2002-05-26 14:55:34|
|Subject: Problem with ucred.h building 7.2.1|