From: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bjoern Metzdorf <bm(at)turtle-entertainment(dot)de> |
Cc: | <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on |
Date: | 2002-11-21 20:17:05 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0211211312240.23651-100000@css120.ihs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-performance |
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Bjoern Metzdorf wrote:
> > A mirrored 2x36 setup will probably yield a marginal hit on writes (vs a
> > single disk) and an improvement on reads due to having two drives to read
> > from and will (based on the Scientific Wild Ass Guess method and knowing
>
> slightly offtopic:
>
> Does anyone one if linux software raid 1 supports this method (reading from
> both disks, thus doubling performance)?
Yes, it does. Generally speaking, it increases raw throughput by a factor
of 2 if you're grabbing enough data to justify reading it from both
drives. But for most database apps, you don't read enough at a time to
get a gain from this. I.e. if your stripe size is 8k and you're reading
1k at a time, no gain.
However, under parallel load, the extra drives really help.
In fact, the linux kernel supports >2 drives in a mirror. Useful for a
mostly read database that needs to handle lots of concurrent users.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2002-11-21 20:45:46 | Re: pg_hba.conf file review |
Previous Message | Mike Nielsen | 2002-11-21 20:03:46 | Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Francisco J Reyes | 2002-11-21 20:47:51 | |
Previous Message | Mike Nielsen | 2002-11-21 20:03:46 | Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on |