From: | Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc> |
---|---|
To: | Bill Moran <wmoran(at)collaborativefusion(dot)com> |
Cc: | david(at)lang(dot)hm, 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 22:21:14 |
Message-ID: | 4772D3DA.10302@mark.mielke.cc |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Bill Moran wrote:
>
>> What do you mean "heard of"? Which raid system do you know of that reads
>> all drives for RAID 1?
>>
>
> I'm fairly sure that FreeBSD's GEOM does. Of course, it couldn't be doing
> consistency checking at that point.
>
According to this:
There is a -b (balance) option that seems pretty clear that it does not
read from all drives if it does not have to:
Create a mirror.
The order of components is important,
because a component's priority is based on its position
(starting from 0). The component with the biggest priority
is used by the prefer balance algorithm and is also used as a
master component when resynchronization is needed, e.g. after
a power failure when the device was open for writing.
Additional options include:
*-b* /balance/ Specifies balance algorithm to use, one of:
*load* Read from the component with the
lowest load.
*prefer* Read from the component with the
biggest priority.
*round-robin* Use round-robin algorithm when
choosing component to read.
*split* Split read requests, which are big-
ger than or equal to slice size on N
pieces, where N is the number of
active components. This is the
default balance algorithm.
Cheers,
mark
--
Mark Mielke <mark(at)mielke(dot)cc>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mark Mielke | 2007-12-26 22:33:07 | Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 |
Previous Message | Bill Moran | 2007-12-26 22:16:08 | Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 |