Re: Postgresql on software RAID
От | scott.marlowe |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Postgresql on software RAID |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.33.0312170844510.10028-100000@css120.ihs.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Postgresql on software RAID (Robert Creager <Robert_Creager@LogicalChaos.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: Postgresql on software RAID
Re: Postgresql on software RAID |
Список | pgsql-admin |
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Robert Creager wrote: > When grilled further on (Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:30:04 -0600), > Patrick Spinler <spinler@kmtel.com> confessed: > > > > > According to the theory they expound, a database with any significant > > write activity whatsoever should never be on raid 5, but instead be on > > raid 0+1. > > > > Kind of related and a point of reference. We use ClearCase and have many > multiple Gb vob's(databases). We were using RAID-5, but had to back off to RAID > 0+1 because of performance reasons (which was indicated in the manual, once you > read it...). This would happen around 1-2Gb's vob size. Our usage of CC > provides heavy writing activity to the underlying dB. > > I don't know what kind of dB engine Atria->Rational->IBM has implemented > underneath, or even it it would look like a dB to someone who knew the > difference... Just wondering, was that on hardware or software RAID5, and if hardware did it have battery backed cache controllers? Makes a huge difference. I would never use SW RAID5 for heavily written databases.
В списке pgsql-admin по дате отправления: