Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10

From: Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc>
To: Fernando Hevia <fhevia(at)ip-tel(dot)com(dot)ar>
Cc: 'pgsql-performance' <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10
Date: 2007-12-26 16:23:28
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
Fernando Hevia wrote:
> Database will be about 30 GB in size initially and growing 10 GB per 
> year. Data is inserted overnight in two big tables and during the day 
> mostly read-only queries are run. Parallelism is rare.
> I have read about different raid levels with Postgres but the advice 
> found seems to apply on 8+ disks systems. With only four disks and 
> performance in mind should I build a RAID 10 or RAID 5 array? Raid 0 
> is overruled since redundancy is needed.
> I am going to use software Raid with Linux (Ubuntu Server 6.06).

In my experience, software RAID 5 is horrible. Write performance can 
decrease below the speed of one disk on its own, and read performance 
will not be significantly more than RAID 1+0 as the number of stripes 
has only increased from 2 to 3, and if reading while writing, you will 
not get 3X as RAID 5 write requires at least two disks to be involved. I 
believe hardware RAID 5 is also horrible, but since the hardware hides 
it from the application, a hardware RAID 5 user might not care.

Software RAID 1+0 works fine on Linux with 4 disks. This is the setup I 
use for my personal server.


Mark Mielke <mark(at)mielke(dot)cc>

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2007-12-26 17:12:21
Subject: Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances
Previous:From: Guillaume SmetDate: 2007-12-26 15:41:24
Subject: Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group