| From: | Robert Creager <Robert_Creager(at)LogicalChaos(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | |
| Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Postgresql on software RAID |
| Date: | 2003-12-17 04:52:56 |
| Message-ID: | 20031216215256.6c815f64.Robert_Creager@LogicalChaos.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
When grilled further on (Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:30:04 -0600),
Patrick Spinler <spinler(at)kmtel(dot)com> confessed:
>
> According to the theory they expound, a database with any significant
> write activity whatsoever should never be on raid 5, but instead be on
> raid 0+1.
>
Kind of related and a point of reference. We use ClearCase and have many
multiple Gb vob's(databases). We were using RAID-5, but had to back off to RAID
0+1 because of performance reasons (which was indicated in the manual, once you
read it...). This would happen around 1-2Gb's vob size. Our usage of CC
provides heavy writing activity to the underlying dB.
I don't know what kind of dB engine Atria->Rational->IBM has implemented
underneath, or even it it would look like a dB to someone who knew the
difference...
Cheers,
Rob
--
21:42:33 up 4 days, 13:15, 1 user, load average: 2.23, 2.10, 2.10
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-12-17 06:19:12 | Re: Postgresql on software RAID |
| Previous Message | Patrick Spinler | 2003-12-17 04:41:29 | Re: comparing with oracle |