On 18/03/2008, Peter Koczan <pjkoczan(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> available, and RAID 5 and RAID 6 are just huge pains and terribly slow
> for writes.
RAID 5 and RAID 6 are just huge pains and terribly slow for writes
with small numbers of spindles.... ;}
In my testing I found that once you hit 10 spindles in a RAID5 the
differences between it and a RAID10 started to become negligible
(around 6% slower on writes average with 10 runs of bonnie++ on
10 spindles) while the read speed (if you're doing similar amounts
of reads & writes it's a fair criterion) were in about the 10% region
faster. With 24 spindles I couldn't see any difference at all. Those
were 73GB 15K SCAs, btw, and the SAN connected via 2GB fibre.
Please don't top post, and don't use HTML e-Mail :} Make your quotes concise.
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Craig Ringer||Date: 2008-03-18 09:59:20|
|Subject: Re: What is the best way to storage music files in Postgresql|
|Previous:||From: James Mansion||Date: 2008-03-18 07:08:58|
|Subject: Re: Benchmark: Dell/Perc 6, 8 disk RAID 10|