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: 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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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:
>> 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."


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

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

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

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