Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10
От | david@lang.hm |
---|---|
Тема | Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.64.0712261504310.11785@asgard.lang.hm обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 (Mark Mielke <mark@mark.mielke.cc>) |
Ответы |
Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007, Mark Mielke wrote: > Florian Weimer wrote: >>> seek/read/calculate/seek/write since the drive moves on after the >>> read), when you read you must read _all_ drives in the set to check >>> the data integrity. >>> >> I don't know of any RAID implementation that performs consistency >> checking on each read operation. 8-( >> > > Dave had too much egg nog... :-) > > Yep - checking consistency on read would eliminate the performance benefits > of RAID under any redundant configuration. except for raid0, raid is primarily a reliability benifit, any performance benifit is incidental, not the primary purpose. that said, I have heard of raid1 setups where it only reads off of one of the drives, but I have not heard of higher raid levels doing so. David Lang
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: