| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alan Hodgson <ahodgson(at)simkin(dot)ca>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: How to best use 32 15k.7 300GB drives? |
| Date: | 2011-01-28 18:55:10 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimR7w9=8_Vet8o3q9pkqgZurDyF3wb9P6AHhzA5@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com> wrote:
> If you go this route, I suggest two equally sized RAID 10's on different
> controllers fir index + data, with software raid-0 on top of that. RAID 10
> will max out a controller after 6 to 10 drives, usually. Using the OS RAID
> 0 to aggregate the throughput of two controllers works great.
I often go one step further and just create a bunch of RAID-1 pairs
and use OS level RAID-0 on top of that. On the LSI8888 cards that was
by far the fastest setup I tested.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2011-01-28 20:33:57 | Re: postgres 9 query performance |
| Previous Message | Mladen Gogala | 2011-01-28 18:46:09 | Re: FW: Queries becoming slow under heavy load |