| From: | Justin Pitts <justinpitts(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot) org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org>, Pierre C <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com>, Kenneth Cox <kenstir(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Advice configuring ServeRAID 8k for performance |
| Date: | 2010-08-06 18:17:18 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTim2DpAyfe0ZMJafRVaOpb0jo3KgyZjjjzxMA8nE@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> Yes, I know that. I am very familiar with how RAID6 works. RAID5
> with the hot spare already rebuilt / built in is a good enough answer
> for management where big words like parity might scare some PHBs.
>
>> In terms of storage cost, it IS like paying for RAID5 + a hot spare,
>> but the protection is better.
>>
>> A RAID 5 with a hot spare built in could not survive 2 simultaneous
>> drive failures.
>
> Exactly. Which is why I had said with the hot spare already built in
> / rebuilt.
My apologies. The 'rebuilt' slant escaped me. Thats a fair way to cast it.
> Geeze, pedant much?
Of course!
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sean Chen | 2010-08-07 04:32:30 | Re: vacuum performance on insert |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2010-08-06 17:59:05 | Re: Advice configuring ServeRAID 8k for performance |