Re: Multiple disks: RAID 5 or PG Cluster
От | Jacques Caron |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Multiple disks: RAID 5 or PG Cluster |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 6.2.0.14.0.20050618181239.0446d7a8@pop.interactivemediafactory.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Multiple disks: RAID 5 or PG Cluster (PFC <lists@boutiquenumerique.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Multiple disks: RAID 5 or PG Cluster
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
Hi, At 18:00 18/06/2005, PFC wrote: > I don't know what I'm talking about, but wouldn't mirorring be > faster >than striping for random reads like you often get on a database ? (ie. the >reads can be dispatched to any disk) ? (or course, not for writes, but if >you won't use fsync, random writes should be reduced no ?) Roughly, for random reads, the performance (in terms of operations/s) compared to a single disk setup, with N being the number of drives, is: RAID 0 (striping): - read = N - write = N - capacity = N - redundancy = 0 RAID 1 (mirroring, N=2): - read = N - write = 1 - capacity = 1 - redundancy = 1 RAID 5 (striping + parity, N>=3) - read = N-1 - write = 1/2 - capacity = N-1 - redundancy = 1 RAID 10 (mirroring + striping, N=2n, N>=4) - read = N - write = N/2 - capacity = N/2 - redundancy < N/2 So depending on your app, i.e. your read/write ratio, how much data can be cached, whether the data is important or not, how much data you have, etc, one or the other option might be better. Jacques.
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: