Re: Looking for a cheap upgrade (RAID)
От | scott.marlowe |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Looking for a cheap upgrade (RAID) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.33.0305021616070.25439-100000@css120.ihs.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Looking for a cheap upgrade (RAID) (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, 2 May 2003, Josh Berkus wrote: > Scott, > > > With that setup, you'd have 15 Gigs for the OS, 4 gigs for swap, and about > > 300 gigs for the database. The nice thing about RAID 5 is that random > > read performance for parallel load gets better as you add drives. Write > > performance gets a little better with more drives since it's likely that > > the drives you're writing to aren't the same ones being read. > > Yeah, but I've found with relatively few drives (such as the minimum of 3) > that RAID 5 performance is considerably worse for writes than RAID 1 -- as > bad as 30-40% of the speed of a raw SCSI disk. This problem goes away with > more disks, of course. Yeah, My RAID test box is an old dual PPro 200 with 6 to 8 2 gig drives in it and on two seperate scsi channels. It's truly amazing how much better RAID5 is when you get that many drives together. OF course, RAID 0 on that setup really flies. :-0 I'd have to say if you're only gonna need 50 or so gigs max, then a RAID1 is much easier to configure, and with a hot spare is very reliable.
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: