| From: | Mitch Pirtle <mitch(dot)pirtle(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Madison Kelly <linux(at)alteeve(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Hardware purchase question |
| Date: | 2005-01-03 20:44:44 |
| Message-ID: | 330532b60501031244130fe819@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
You are right, I now remember that setup was originally called "RAID
10 plus 1", and I believe is was an incorrect statement from an
overzealous salesman ;-)
Thanks for the clarification!
- Mitch
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 15:19:04 -0500, Madison Kelly <linux(at)alteeve(dot)com> wrote:
> Madison Kelly wrote:
> > Nope, Raid 10 (one zero) is a mirror is stripes, no parity. with r10
>
> Woops, that should be "mirror of stripes".
>
> By the way, what you are thinking of is possible, it would be 51 (five
> one; a raid 5 built on mirrors) or 15 (a mirror of raid 5 arrays).
> Always be careful, 10 and 01 are also not the same. You want to think
> carefully about what you want out of your array before building it.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2005-01-03 21:11:44 | Re: sudden drop in statement turnaround latency -- yay!. |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2005-01-03 20:36:07 | Re: Hardware purchase question |