From: | Fabio Pardi <f(dot)pardi(at)portavita(dot)eu> |
---|---|
To: | Neto pr <netopr9(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Why HDD performance is better than SSD in this case |
Date: | 2018-07-18 07:46:32 |
Message-ID: | 95d2d354-bd8c-f67d-d1f5-03072fd8a2ac@portavita.eu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Hi Neto,
RAID 0 to store production data should never be used. Never a good idea, in my opinion.
Simple reason is that when you lose one disk, you lose everything.
If your goal is to bench the disk, go for single disk.
If you want to be closer to a production setup, go for RAID 10, or pick a RAID setup close to what your needs and capabilities are (more reads? more writes? SSD? HDD? cache? ...? )
If you only have 2 disks, your obliged (redundant) choice is RAID 1.
regards,
fabio pardi
On 18/07/18 03:24, Neto pr wrote:
>
>> As side note: why to run a test on a setup you can never use on production?
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> fabio pardi
>>
>
> Can you just explain why you said it below?
>
> "As side note: why to run a test on a setup you can never use on production?"
>
> You think that a RAID ZERO configuration for a DBMS is little used?
> Which one do you think would be good? I accept suggestions because I
> am in the middle of a work for my
> research of the postgraduate course and I can change the environment
> to something that is more useful and really used in real production
> environments.
>
> Best Regards
> []`s Neto
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nicolas Charles | 2018-07-18 09:33:39 | Re: Why HDD performance is better than SSD in this case |
Previous Message | Neto pr | 2018-07-18 01:24:27 | Re: Why HDD performance is better than SSD in this case |