Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10
- From: Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>
- To: Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc>
- Cc: Fernando Hevia <fhevia(at)ip-tel(dot)com(dot)ar>, "'pgsql-performance'" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
- Subject: Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10
- Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 13:13:56 -0500 (EST)
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007, Mark Mielke wrote:
I believe hardware RAID 5 is also horrible, but since the hardware hides it from the application, a hardware RAID 5 user might not care.
Typically anything doing hardware RAID 5 also has a reasonable sized write cache on the controller, which softens the problem a bit. As soon as you exceed what it can buffer you're back to suffering again.
-- * Greg Smith gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
- References:
- With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10
- From: Fernando Hevia
- Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10
- From: Mark Mielke
- With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10
- Prev by Date: Anyone running on RHEL Cluster?
- Next by Date: Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances
- Previous by thread: Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10
- Next by thread: Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10
- Indexes: