Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on faster HDDs
От | Rajesh Kumar Mallah. |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on faster HDDs |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200211220038.43950.mallah@trade-india.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on faster HDDs (Steve Crawford <scrawford@pinpointresearch.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
Thanks Steve, recently i have come to know that i can only get 3*18 GB ultra160 10K hraddrives, my OS is lunux , other parameters are RAM:2GB , CPU:2*2Ghz Xeon, i feel i will do away with raid use one disk for the OS and pg_dumps , one for tables and last one for WAL , does this sound good? regds mallah. On Friday 22 November 2002 00:26, Steve Crawford wrote: > I had long labored under the impression that RAID 5 should give me better > performance but I have since encountered many reports that this is not the > case. Do some searching on Google and you will probably find numerous > articles. > > Note 3x18 w/RAID5 will give 36GB usable while 2x36 w/o RAID is 72GB. > You could use mirroring on the 2x36 and have the same usable space. > > 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 > nothing about your overall system) probably be faster than the RAID5 > configuration while giving you identical usable space and data safety. > > You also may see improvements due to the 15,000RPM drives (of course RPM is > sort of an arbitrary measure - you really want to know about track access > times, latency, transfer rate, etc. and RPM is just one influencing factor > for the above). > > The quality of your RAID cards will also be important (how fast do they > perform their calculations, how much buffer do they have) as will the > overall specs of you system. If you have a bottleneck somewhere other than > your raw disk I/O then you can throw all the money you want at faster > drives and see no improvement. > > Cheers, > Steve > > On Thursday 21 November 2002 8:45 am, you 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. > > > > > > > > Regds > > Mallah. > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org) -- Rajesh Kumar Mallah, Project Manager (Development) Infocom Network Limited, New Delhi phone: +91(11)6152172 (221) (L) ,9811255597 (M) Visit http://www.trade-india.com , India's Leading B2B eMarketplace.
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: