Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Mark Mielke
Тема Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10
Дата
Msg-id 47728000.4000709@mark.mielke.cc
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10  ("Fernando Hevia" <fhevia@ip-tel.com.ar>)
Ответы Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10  (Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>)
Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10  ("Fernando Hevia" <fhevia@ip-tel.com.ar>)
Список pgsql-performance
Fernando Hevia wrote:

Database will be about 30 GB in size initially and growing 10 GB per year. Data is inserted overnight in two big tables and during the day mostly read-only queries are run. Parallelism is rare.

I have read about different raid levels with Postgres but the advice found seems to apply on 8+ disks systems. With only four disks and performance in mind should I build a RAID 10 or RAID 5 array? Raid 0 is overruled since redundancy is needed.

I am going to use software Raid with Linux (Ubuntu Server 6.06).


In my experience, software RAID 5 is horrible. Write performance can decrease below the speed of one disk on its own, and read performance will not be significantly more than RAID 1+0 as the number of stripes has only increased from 2 to 3, and if reading while writing, you will not get 3X as RAID 5 write requires at least two disks to be involved. 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.

Software RAID 1+0 works fine on Linux with 4 disks. This is the setup I use for my personal server.

Cheers,
mark

-- 
Mark Mielke <mark@mielke.cc>

В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: "Guillaume Smet"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances
Следующее
От: "Pavel Stehule"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances