Re: Postgresql 9.0.6 Raid 5 or not please help.

Am 23.12.2011 08:05, schrieb Scott Marlowe:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 11:18 PM, tuanhoanganh<hatuan05(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Thanks for your answer. But how performance between raid5 and one disk.
> One disk will usually win, 2 disks (in a mirror) will definitely win.
> RAID-5 has the highest overhead and the poorest performance,
> especially if it's degraded (1 drive out) that simple mirroring
> methods don't suffer from. But even in an undegraded state it is
> usually the slowest method. RAID-10 is generally the fastest with
> redundancy, and of course pure RAID-0 is fastest of all but has no
> redundancy.
>
> You should do some simple benchmarks with something like pgbench and
> various configs to see for yourself. For extra bonus points, break a
> mirror (2 disk -> 1 disk) and compare it to RAID-5 (3 disk -> 2 disk
> degraded) for performance. The change in performance for a RAID-1 to
> single disk degraded situation is usually reads are half as fast and
> writes are just as fast. For RAID-5 expect to see it drop by a lot.
>
I'm not so confident that a RAID-1 will win over a single disk. When it
comes to writes, the latency should be ~50 higher (if both disk must
sync), since the spindles are not running synchronously. This applies to
softraid, not something like a battery-backend raid controller of course.

Or am I wrong here?