Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10
От | Bill Moran |
---|---|
Тема | Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20071226171105.889f6146.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 (Mark Mielke <mark@mark.mielke.cc>) |
Ответы |
Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
In response to Mark Mielke <mark@mark.mielke.cc>: > david@lang.hm wrote: > > On Wed, 26 Dec 2007, Mark Mielke wrote: > > > >> Florian Weimer wrote: > >>>> seek/read/calculate/seek/write since the drive moves on after the > >>>> read), when you read you must read _all_ drives in the set to check > >>>> the data integrity. > >>> I don't know of any RAID implementation that performs consistency > >>> checking on each read operation. 8-( > >> Dave had too much egg nog... :-) > >> Yep - checking consistency on read would eliminate the performance > >> benefits of RAID under any redundant configuration. > > except for raid0, raid is primarily a reliability benifit, any > > performance benifit is incidental, not the primary purpose. > > that said, I have heard of raid1 setups where it only reads off of one > > of the drives, but I have not heard of higher raid levels doing so. > What do you mean "heard of"? Which raid system do you know of that reads > all drives for RAID 1? I'm fairly sure that FreeBSD's GEOM does. Of course, it couldn't be doing consistency checking at that point. -- Bill Moran Collaborative Fusion Inc. http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/ wmoran@collaborativefusion.com Phone: 412-422-3463x4023
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: