From: | Peter Childs <blue(dot)dragon(at)blueyonder(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | Ben-Nes Michael <miki(at)canaan(dot)co(dot)il> |
Cc: | Markus Wollny <Markus(dot)Wollny(at)computec(dot)de>, holger(at)marzen(dot)de, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Recomended FS |
Date: | 2003-10-21 10:17:48 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.58.0310211112160.29396@bluedragon.homelinux.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Ben-Nes Michael wrote:
> what about mirroring only ? raid 1 ?
>
> I always thought that raid 1 is the fastest, am I true ?
>
> I don't really need more then 3GB data and I have two 36GB HD. so I don't
> need lvl 0 nor lvl 5 unless raid 1 is slower.
Raid 1 should not be slower than raid 5. hence
Raid 0
Write = Deciede which disk, Write
Read = Deciede Which disk, Read
Raid 1
Write = Write Disk 1, Write Dist 2
Read = Read (Don't matter which one)
Raid 5
Write = Write Disk 1, Write Disk 2, Calc Check Sum, Write Disk 3
Read = Read Disk 1, Read Disk 2, Regenate Data.
Peter Childs
>
> --------------------------
> Canaan Surfing Ltd.
> Internet Service Providers
> Ben-Nes Michael - Manager
> Tel: 972-4-6991122
> Fax: 972-4-6990098
> http://www.canaan.net.il
> --------------------------
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Markus Wollny" <Markus(dot)Wollny(at)computec(dot)de>
> To: <holger(at)marzen(dot)de>
> Cc: <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 11:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Recomended FS
>
>
> > Theory vs. real life. In Theory, RAID5 is faster because less
> > data have
> > to be written to disk. But it's true, many RAID5 controllers
> > don't have
> > enough CPU power.
>
> I think it might not be just CPU-power of the controller. For RAID0+1
> you just have two disc-I/O per write-access: writing to the original set
> and the mirror-set. For RAID5 you have three additional
> disc-I/O-processes: 1. Read the original data block, 2. read the parity
> block (and calculate the new parity block, which is not a disk I/O), 3.
> write the updated data block and 4. write the updated parity block. Thus
> recommendations by IBM for DB/2 and several Oracle-consultants state
> that RAID5 is the best compromise for storage vs. transaction speed, but
> if your main concern is the latter, you're always best of with RAID0+1;
> RAID0+1 does indeed always and reproducably have better write
> performance that RAID0+1 and read-performance is almost always also
> slightly better.
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2003-10-21 10:54:14 | Re: tsearch2 and aspell |
Previous Message | Ben-Nes Michael | 2003-10-21 09:42:50 | Re: Recomended FS |