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

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: 2007-12-27 15:24:30
Message-ID: 4773C3AE.1060602@mark.mielke.cc
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Bill Moran wrote:
> In response to Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc>:
>
>
>> Bill Moran wrote:
>>
>>> I'm fairly sure that FreeBSD's GEOM does. Of course, it couldn't be doing
>>> consistency checking at that point.
>>>
>> According to this:
>>
>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=gmirror&apropos=0&sektion=8&manpath=FreeBSD+6-current&format=html
>>
>> There is a -b (balance) option that seems pretty clear that it does not
>> read from all drives if it does not have to:
>>
>
> >From where did you draw that conclusion? Note that the "split" algorithm
> (which is the default) divides requests up among multiple drives. I'm
> unclear as to how you reached a conclusion opposite of what the man page
> says -- did you test and find it not to work?
>
Perhaps you and I are speaking slightly different languages? :-) When I
say "does not read from all drives", I mean "it will happily read from
any of the drives to satisfy the request, and allows some level of
configuration as to which drive it will select. It does not need to read
all of the drives to satisfy the request."

Cheers,
mark

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Smith 2007-12-27 15:53:43 Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances
Previous Message Jared Mauch 2007-12-27 14:58:43 Re: pg_dump performance