| From: | "Pierre C" <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Gael Le Mignot" <gael(at)pilotsystems(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Craig James" <craig_james(at)emolecules(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows |
| Date: | 2010-12-18 13:55:26 |
| Message-ID: | op.vnwwyom4eorkce@apollo13 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> > The real performance problem with RAID 5 won't show up until a drive
> > dies and it starts rebuilding
>
> I don't agree with that. RAID5 is very slow for random writes, since
> it needs to :
"The real problem" is when RAID5 loses a drive and goes from "acceptable"
kind of slow, to "someone's fired" kind of slow. Then of course in the
middle the rebuild, a bad sector is discovered in some place the
filesystem has never visited yet on one of the remaining drives, and all
hell breaks loose.
RAID6 is only one extra disk...
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-12-18 15:53:11 | Re: Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2010-12-18 11:31:38 | Re: Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows |