Re: Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows

From: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Craig James <craig_james(at)emolecules(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows
Date: 2010-12-18 02:06:15
Message-ID: AANLkTi=wPaT_xVU2JGUg_Sc3taOphP0HW487oJHFafXe@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Craig James
<craig_james(at)emolecules(dot)com> wrote:
> RAID5 is a Really Bad Idea for any database.  It is S...L...O...W.  It does
> NOT give better redundancy and security; RAID 10 with a battery-backed RAID
> controller card is massively better for performance and just as good for
> redundancy and security.

The real performance problem with RAID 5 won't show up until a drive
dies and it starts rebuilding, at which point it's then WAYYYY slower,
and while it's rebuilding you don't have redundancy. If you HAVE to
use stripes with redundancy, use RAID-6. It's no faster when working
right, but with a single dead drive it's still ok on performance and
can rebuild at leisure since there's till redundancy in the system.
But really if you're running a db on anything other than RAID-10 you
need to reassess your priorities.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-12-18 02:32:48 Re: Index Bloat - how to tell?
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-12-17 23:49:19 Re: Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows