Re: dell versus hp

From: "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Alan Hodgson" <ahodgson(at)simkin(dot)ca>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: dell versus hp
Date: 2007-11-08 23:24:51
Message-ID: dcc563d10711081524t7543cdfbk86fad7d099b0b7d1@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Nov 8, 2007 2:56 PM, Alan Hodgson <ahodgson(at)simkin(dot)ca> wrote:
> On Thursday 08 November 2007, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>
> > Is raid6 better than raid10 in term of overall performances, or a better
> > cut when you need capacity more than throughput?
>
> You can't touch RAID 10 for performance or reliability. The only reason to
> use RAID 5 or RAID 6 is to get more capacity out of the same drives.

Actually, RAID6 is about the same on reliability, since it has double
parity and theoretically ANY TWO disks could fail, and RAID6 will
still have all your data. If the right two disks fail in a RAID-10
you lose everything. Admittedly, that's a pretty remote possibility,
but so it three drives failing at once in a RAID-6.

For performance RAID-10 is still pretty much the best choice.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-11-09 00:15:04 Re: Join performance
Previous Message Gregory Stark 2007-11-08 23:10:49 Re: Estimation problem with a LIKE clause containing a /