From: | Michael Stone <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives |
Date: | 2007-05-30 14:25:59 |
Message-ID: | 20070530142556.GB1785@mathom.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 07:06:54AM -0700, Luke Lonergan wrote:
>On 5/30/07 12:29 AM, "Peter Childs" <peterachilds(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Good point, also if you had Raid 1 with 3 drives with some bit errors at least
>> you can take a vote on whats right. Where as if you only have 2 and they
>> disagree how do you know which is right other than pick one and hope... But
>> whatever it will be slower to keep in sync on a heavy write system.
>
>Much better to get a RAID system that checksums blocks so that "good" is
>known. Solaris ZFS does that, as do high end systems from EMC and HDS.
I don't see how that's better at all; in fact, it reduces to exactly the
same problem: given two pieces of data which disagree, which is right?
The ZFS hashes do a better job of error detection, but that's still not
the same thing as a voting system (3 copies, 2 of 3 is correct answer)
to resolve inconsistencies.
Mike Stone
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Luke Lonergan | 2007-05-30 14:36:48 | Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives |
Previous Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2007-05-30 14:11:04 | Re: Vacuum takes forever |