Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Sweet - thats good - RAID 10 support seems like an odd thing to leave out.
Alex
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as expected)
- From: "Alex Turner" <armtuk(at)gmail(dot)com>
- To: "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>
- Cc: "Bucky Jordan" <bjordan(at)lumeta(dot)com>, "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
- Subject: Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as expected)
- Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 23:40:16 -0400
Sweet - thats good - RAID 10 support seems like an odd thing to leave out.
Alex
On 9/18/06, Luke Lonergan <
llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> wrote:
Alex,
On 9/18/06 4:14 PM, "Alex Turner" < armtuk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Be warned, the tech specs page:
> http://www.sun.com/servers/x64/x4500/specs.xml#anchor3
> doesn't mention RAID 10 as a possible, and this is probably what most would
> recommend for fast data access if you are doing both read and write
> operations. If you are doing mostly Read, then RAID 5 is passable, but it's
> redundancy with large numbers of drives is not so great.
RAID10 works great on the X4500 we get 1.6GB/s + per X4500 using RAID10 in
ZFS. We worked with the Sun Solaris kernel team to make that happen and the
patches are part of Solaris 10 Update 3 due out in November.
- Luke
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as
- From: Luke Lonergan
- Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as
- References:
- Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as expected)
- From: Alex Turner
- Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as
- From: Luke Lonergan
- Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as expected)
- Prev by Date: Re: LIKE query problem
- Next by Date: Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as
- Previous by thread: Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as
- Next by thread: Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as
- Indexes: