Re: H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on faster
От | scott.marlowe |
---|---|
Тема | Re: H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on faster |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.33.0211211029390.23081-100000@css120.ihs.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on faster HDDs ("Rajesh Kumar Mallah." <mallah@trade-india.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on faster HDDs
Re: H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on faster HDDs |
Список | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Rajesh Kumar Mallah. 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. Does the OS you're running on support software RAID? If so the dual 36 gigs in a RAID0 software would be fastest, and in a RAID1 would still be pretty fast plus they would be redundant. Depending on your queries, there may not be a lot of difference between running the 3*18 hw RAID or the 2*36 setup, especially if most of your data can fit into memory on the server. Generally, the 2*36 should be faster for writing, and the 3*18 should be about even for reads, maybe a little faster.
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: