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: david(at)lang(dot)hm
- To: Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc>
- Cc: Florian Weimer <fw(at)deneb(dot)enyo(dot)de>, 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 15:05:50 -0800 (PST)
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
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10
- From: Mark Mielke
- Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10
- References:
- Re: 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: david
- Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10
- From: Florian Weimer
- Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10
- From: Mark Mielke
- Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10
- Prev by Date: Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances
- Next by Date: Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10
- 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: