From: | "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Vivek Khera" <khera(at)kcilink(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL Performance" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: dell versus hp |
Date: | 2007-11-14 03:20:41 |
Message-ID: | b42b73150711131920w636f51d9ua7dd680b14a90b68@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Nov 8, 2007 1:22 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Mine too. I would suggest though, that by the time you get to 14
> disks, you switch from RAID-5 to RAID-6 so you have double redundancy.
> Performance of a degraded array is better in RAID6 than RAID5, and
> you can run your rebuilds much slower since you're still redundant.
>
couple of remarks here:
* personally im not a believer in raid 6, it seems to hurt random
write performance which is already a problem with raid 5...I prefer
the hot spare route, or raid 10.
* the perc 5 sas controller is rebranded lsi megaraid controller with
some custom firmware tweaks. for example, the perc 5/e is a rebranded
8408 megaraid iirc.
* perc 5 controllers are decent if unspectacular. good raid 5
performance, average raid 10.
* to the OP, the 15k solution (dell 2900) will likely perform the
best, if you don't mind the rack space.
* again the op, you can possibly consider combining the o/s and the
wal volumes (2xraid 1 + 6xraid 10) combining the o/s and wal volumes
can sometimes also be a win, but doesn't sound likely in your case.
merlin
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2007-11-14 03:36:11 | Re: Curious about dead rows. |
Previous Message | Jean-David Beyer | 2007-11-14 02:26:08 | Re: Curious about dead rows. |