Re: RAID 10 or RAID 10 + RAID 1

From: Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
To: Michael Ben-Nes <miki(at)epoch(dot)co(dot)il>
Cc: PostgreSQL Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: RAID 10 or RAID 10 + RAID 1
Date: 2007-08-14 21:31:50
Message-ID: 20070814213150.GT54135@nasby.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 01:14:39PM +0300, Michael Ben-Nes wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I need to setup a web server with PostgreSQL. The heaviest application will
> be product comparisons engine that will analyze 5-10 Million products.
>
> I have 6 SAS 15K disks, how should I set them up:
>
> RAID 10 on all 6 disks ( OS + Apache + PostgreSQL )
> RAID 1 on 2 disks ( OS + Apache ) + RAID 10 on 4 disks ( PostgreSQL )

If the controller is any good and has a battery-backed write cache,
you'll probably do better with a 6 disk RAID10. If not, I'd put all the
data on a 4 disk RAID10, and everything else (including pg_xlog!) on a
mirror.

> What is the recommended stripe size ( The computer is Dell PowerEdge 2950 )

If you search through the archives I think you'll find some stuff about
stripe size and performance.

As always, your best bet is to benchmark both approaches with your
actual application.
--
Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sebastián Baioni 2007-08-15 19:36:45 Indexscan is only used if we use "limit n"
Previous Message Michael Ben-Nes 2007-08-14 10:14:39 RAID 10 or RAID 10 + RAID 1