Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: autovacuum
- From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
- To: "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
- Cc: <robert(at)webtent(dot)com>, "Bill Moran" <wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
- Subject: Re: autovacuum
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 23:08:27 +0100
- Message-id: <87vea59ehw(dot)fsf(at)oxford(dot)xeocode(dot)com>
"Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> writes: > RAID5 optimizes for space, not performance or reliability. It gets > faster but less reliable as it gets bigger. If you can afford the > space RAID-10 is generally preferred. RAID5 can be faster for DSS style work loads. If you're writing data to the raid in large contiguous chunks then it you get higher bandwidth than RAID1+0. The problem with RAID5 is that if you're writing random access chunks then it's even slower than not having a raid at all. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
- References:
- autovacuum
- From: Robert Fitzpatrick
- Re: autovacuum
- From: Bill Moran
- Re: autovacuum
- From: Robert Fitzpatrick
- Re: autovacuum
- From: Bill Moran
- Re: autovacuum
- From: Robert Fitzpatrick
- Re: autovacuum
- From: Scott Marlowe
- autovacuum
- Prev by Date: Re: Adding domain type with CHECK constraints slow on large table
- Next by Date: Re: Migration from PervasiveSQL
- Previous by thread: Re: autovacuum
- Next by thread: Re: autovacuum
- Indexes: