From: | "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Bjoern Metzdorf" <bm(at)turtle-entertainment(dot)de>, "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
Cc: | <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no |
Date: | 2002-11-21 21:21:16 |
Message-ID: | web-1836149@davinci.ethosmedia.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-performance |
Bjoern,
> Good to know.
>
> What do you think is faster: 3 drives in raid 1 or 3 drives in raid
> 5?
My experience? Raid 1. But that depends on other factors as well;
your controller (software controllers use system RAM and thus lower
performance), what kind of reads you're getting and how often. IMHO,
RAID 5 is faster for sequential reads (lareg numbers of records on
clustered indexes), RAID 1 for random reads.
And keep in mind: RAID 5 is *bad* for data writes. In my experience,
database data-write performance on RAID 5 UW SCSI is as slow as IDE
drives, particulary for updating large numbers of records, *unless* the
updated records are sequentially updated and clustered.
But in a multi-user write-often setup, RAID 5 will slow you down and
RAID 1 is better.
Did that help?
-Josh Berkus
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | scott.marlowe | 2002-11-21 21:24:00 | Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2002-11-21 21:20:56 | Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2002-11-21 21:23:57 | Re: performance of insert/delete/update |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2002-11-21 21:20:56 | Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no |