From: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | Chad Thompson <chad(at)weblinkservices(dot)com>, pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Looking for a cheap upgrade (RAID) |
Date: | 2003-05-02 22:18:21 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0305021616070.25439-100000@css120.ihs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, 2 May 2003, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Scott,
>
> > With that setup, you'd have 15 Gigs for the OS, 4 gigs for swap, and about
> > 300 gigs for the database. The nice thing about RAID 5 is that random
> > read performance for parallel load gets better as you add drives. Write
> > performance gets a little better with more drives since it's likely that
> > the drives you're writing to aren't the same ones being read.
>
> Yeah, but I've found with relatively few drives (such as the minimum of 3)
> that RAID 5 performance is considerably worse for writes than RAID 1 -- as
> bad as 30-40% of the speed of a raw SCSI disk. This problem goes away with
> more disks, of course.
Yeah, My RAID test box is an old dual PPro 200 with 6 to 8 2 gig drives in
it and on two seperate scsi channels. It's truly amazing how much better
RAID5 is when you get that many drives together. OF course, RAID 0 on
that setup really flies. :-0
I'd have to say if you're only gonna need 50 or so gigs max, then a RAID1
is much easier to configure, and with a hot spare is very reliable.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ron Mayer | 2003-05-03 03:10:02 | Re: Query Priority |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2003-05-02 22:10:25 | Re: Looking for a cheap upgrade (RAID) |