| From: | Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc> |
|---|---|
| To: | david(at)lang(dot)hm |
| Cc: | Florian Weimer <fw(at)deneb(dot)enyo(dot)de>, Fernando Hevia <fhevia(at)ip-tel(dot)com(dot)ar>, '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 21:59:45 |
| Message-ID: | 4772CED1.2070808@mark.mielke.cc |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
david(at)lang(dot)hm wrote:
> I could see a raid 1 array not doing consistancy checking (after all,
> it has no way of knowing what's right if it finds an error), but since
> raid 5/6 can repair the data I would expect them to do the checking
> each time.
Your messages are spread across the thread. :-)
RAID 5 cannot repair the data. I don't know much about RAID 6, but I
expect it cannot necessarily repair the data either. It still doesn't
know which drive is wrong. In any case, there is no implementation I am
aware of that performs mandatory consistency checks on read. This would
be silliness.
Cheers,
mark
--
Mark Mielke <mark(at)mielke(dot)cc>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Mielke | 2007-12-26 22:05:54 | Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 |
| Previous Message | Mark Mielke | 2007-12-26 21:57:08 | Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 |