| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | PFC <lists(at)boutiquenumerique(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, Michael Ben-Nes <miki(at)canaan(dot)co(dot)il>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Advice on RAID card |
| Date: | 2005-09-25 16:22:02 |
| Message-ID: | 4336CEAA.7070208@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
>
> Even for RAID5 ? it uses a bit more CPU for the parity calculations.
I honestly can't speak to RAID 5. I don't (and won't) use it. RAID 5 is
a little brutal when under
heavy write load. I use either 1, or 10.
> An advantage of software raid, is that if the RAID card dies, you
> have to buy the same one ; whether I think that you can transfer a
> bunch of software RAID5 disks to another machine if the machine
> they're in dies...
There is a huge advantage to software raid on all kinds of levels. If
you have the CPU then I suggest
it. However you will never get the performance out of software raid on
the high level (think 1 gig of cache)
that you would on a software raid setup.
It is a bit of a tradeoff but for most installations software raid is
more than adequate.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | PFC | 2005-09-25 16:53:57 | Re: Advice on RAID card |
| Previous Message | PFC | 2005-09-25 16:08:27 | Re: Advice on RAID card |