Re: What's size of your PostgreSQL Database?

Ow Mun Heng wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com> 

If you throw enough drives on a quality RAID controller at it you can
get very good throughput.  If you're looking at read only / read
mostly, then RAID5 or 6 might be a better choice than RAID-10.  But
RAID 10 is my default choice unless testing shows RAID-5/6 can beat
it.   

I'm loading my slave server with RAID-0 based on 3 IDE 7200 Drives.
Is this worst off than a RAID 5 implementation?

 

I see no problem using Raid-0 on a purely read only database where there is a copy of the data somewhere else. RAID 0 gives performance.  If one of the 3 drives dies it takes the server down and lost of data will happen.  The idea behind RAID 1/5/6/10  is  if a drive does fail the system can keep going.    Giving you time to shut down and replace the bad disk or if you have hot swappable just pull and replace.  I just went through failed drives on Email server a few months ago.  This a case where i told the client the server is 5 years old time to replace it about 3 months latter i get a call "the server is really slow".  It turned out 1 of the drives in the RAID 10 had failed.   The client allowed me to order a new server at that point.