| From: | Brendan Duddridge <brendan(at)clickspace(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim C(dot) Nasby <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Eric Lam <elam(at)lisasoft(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Slow restoration question |
| Date: | 2006-05-02 18:40:43 |
| Message-ID: | 622925BE-A31E-42FD-AF6A-68DDF3B4A1B7@clickspace.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Everyone here always says that RAID 5 isn't good for Postgres. We
have an Apple Xserve RAID configured with RAID 5. We chose RAID 5
because Apple said their Xserve RAID was "optimized" for RAID 5. Not
sure if we made the right decision though. They give an option for
formatting as RAID 0+1. Is that the same as RAID 10 that everyone
talks about? Or is it the reverse?
Thanks,
____________________________________________________________________
Brendan Duddridge | CTO | 403-277-5591 x24 | brendan(at)clickspace(dot)com
ClickSpace Interactive Inc.
Suite L100, 239 - 10th Ave. SE
Calgary, AB T2G 0V9
On May 2, 2006, at 11:16 AM, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 05:14:41PM +0930, Eric Lam wrote:
>> all dumpfiles total about 17Gb. It has been running for 50ish hrs
>> and up
>> to about the fourth file (5-6 ish Gb) and this is on a raid 5 server.
>
> RAID5 generally doesn't bode too well for performance; that could be
> part of the issue.
> --
> Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
> Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
> vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Lewis | 2006-05-02 18:49:15 | Re: Slow restoration question |
| Previous Message | Tony Wasson | 2006-05-02 18:26:04 | postgresql transaction id monitoring with nagios |