| From: | Vick Khera <vivek(at)khera(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 questions re RAID |
| Date: | 2011-06-21 13:49:54 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTinMiaMYu-VVkWmibvUSoWvWWOJ5Mw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Scott Ribe <scott_ribe(at)elevated-dev(dot)com> wrote:
> RAID-1 & RAID-10 are not ruled out, I'm just exploring options. And I'm not actually wanting to use RAID 5; it's RAID 6 that I'm considering...
You have 4 disk bays and you want RAID-6? How will that improve
anything over RAID-10? You will have the same amount of available
space, and the writes will be slower. Ok...there is *one* advantage:
you can lose any two drives at the same time and still survive, with
RAID-10 if you lose the wrong two drives you're hosed.
That said, on one of my production DB's, I have a 16-bay raid
enclosure and I run RAID-6 + hot spare. It even has an Areca
controller made visible to the server as a single drive via fibre
channel. Very sweet setup.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Leon Match | 2011-06-21 13:59:38 | Call procedure from a Job, Test a Job in pgAdmin? |
| Previous Message | Vick Khera | 2011-06-21 13:45:21 | Re: 2 questions re RAID |