Re: choosing RAID level for xlogs

The other point that is well made is that with enough drives you will
max out the PCI bus before you max out the drives. 64-bit 66Mhz can
do about 400MB/sec, which can be acheived by two 3 drive stripes (6
drive in RAID 10). A true PCI-X card can do better, but can your
controller? Remember, U320 is only 320MB/channel...

Alex Turner
NetEconomist

On 8/16/05, Anjan Dave <adave(at)vantage(dot)com> wrote:
> Thanks, everyone. I got some excellent replies, including some long explanations. Appreciate the time you guys took out for the responses.
>
> The gist of it i take, is to use RAID10. I have 400MB+ of write cache on the controller(s), that the RAID5 LUN(s) could benefit from by filling it up and writing out the complete stripe, but come to think of it, it's shared among the two Storage Processors, all the LUNs, not just the ones holding the pg_xlog directory. The other thing (with Clariion) is the write cache mirroring. Write isn't signalled complete to the host until the cache content is mirrored across the other SP (and vice-versa), which is a good thing, but this operation could potentially become a bottleneck with very high load on the SPs.
>
> Also, one would have to fully trust the controller/manufacturer's claim on signalling the write completion. And, performance is a priority over the drive space lost in RAID10 for me.
>
> I can use 4 drives instead of 6.
>
> Thanks,
> Anjan
>
> t-----Original Message-----
> From: Gregory S. Williamson [mailto:gsw(at)globexplorer(dot)com]
> Sent: Tue 8/16/2005 6:22 PM
> To: Anjan Dave; pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Cc:
> Subject: RE: [PERFORM] choosing RAID level for xlogs
>
>
>
> I would be very cautious about ever using RAID5, despite manufacturers' claims to the contrary. The link below is authored by a very knowledgable fellow whose posts I know (and trust) from Informix land.
>
> <http://www.miracleas.com/BAARF/RAID5_versus_RAID10.txt>
>
> Greg Williamson
> DBA
> GlobeXplorer LLC
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-performance-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org on behalf of Anjan Dave
> Sent: Mon 8/15/2005 1:35 PM
> To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Cc:
> Subject: [PERFORM] choosing RAID level for xlogs
> Hi,
>
>
>
> One simple question. For 125 or more checkpoint segments
> (checkpoint_timeout is 600 seconds, shared_buffers are at 21760 or
> 170MB) on a very busy database, what is more suitable, a separate 6 disk
> RAID5 volume, or a RAID10 volume? Databases will be on separate
> spindles. Disks are 36GB 15KRPM, 2Gb Fiber Channel. Performance is
> paramount, but I don't want to use RAID0.
>
>
>
> PG7.4.7 on RHAS 4.0
>
>
>
> I can provide more info if needed.
>
>
>
> Appreciate some recommendations!
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Anjan
>
>
>
>
> ---
> This email message and any included attachments constitute confidential
> and privileged information intended exclusively for the listed
> addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please notify
> Vantage by immediately telephoning 215-579-8390, extension 1158. In
> addition, please reply to this message confirming your receipt of the
> same in error. A copy of your email reply can also be sent to
> support(at)vantage(dot)com(dot) Please do not disclose, copy, distribute or take
> any action in reliance on the contents of this information. Kindly
> destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. Any other use of
> this email is prohibited. Thank you for your cooperation. For more
> information about Vantage, please visit our website at
> http://www.vantage.com <http://www.vantage.com/> .
> ---
>
>
>
>
>
> !DSPAM:4300fd35105094125621296!
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
> choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
> match
>