| From: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Rajesh Kumar Mallah(dot)" <mallah(at)trade-india(dot)com> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on faster |
| Date: | 2002-11-21 17:32:05 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0211211029390.23081-100000@css120.ihs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-performance |
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Rajesh Kumar Mallah. wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I have two options:
> 3*18 GB 10,000 RPM Ultra160 Dual Channel SCSI controller + H/W Raid 5
> and
> 2*36 GB 15,000 RPM Ultra320 Dual Channel SCSI and no RAID
>
> Does anyone opinions *performance wise* the pros and cons of above
> two options.
>
> please take in consideration in latter case its higher RPM and better
> SCSI interface.
Does the OS you're running on support software RAID? If so the dual 36
gigs in a RAID0 software would be fastest, and in a RAID1 would still be
pretty fast plus they would be redundant.
Depending on your queries, there may not be a lot of difference between
running the 3*18 hw RAID or the 2*36 setup, especially if most of your
data can fit into memory on the server.
Generally, the 2*36 should be faster for writing, and the 3*18 should be
about even for reads, maybe a little faster.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rajesh Kumar Mallah. | 2002-11-21 17:46:55 | Re: H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on faster HDDs |
| Previous Message | Chris Ruprecht | 2002-11-21 17:19:35 | Re: H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on faster HDDs |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | scott.marlowe | 2002-11-21 17:32:44 | Re: vacuum full |
| Previous Message | Chris Ruprecht | 2002-11-21 17:19:35 | Re: H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on faster HDDs |