X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EBAC9DC874
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Sat, 24 Dec 2005 18:53:32 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 52863-09
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Sat, 24 Dec 2005 18:53:33 -0400 (AST)
Received: from svr4.postgresql.org (svr4.postgresql.org [66.98.251.159])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D14419DC83A
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Sat, 24 Dec 2005 18:53:29 -0400 (AST)
Received: from mail.nederland.net (mail.nederland.net [83.137.20.15])
	by svr4.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C52C45AFB51
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Sat, 24 Dec 2005 22:53:32 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by romeo.computel.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF5961412E;
	Sat, 24 Dec 2005 23:53:30 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mail.nederland.net ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (romeo.computel.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 01556-11; Sat, 24 Dec 2005 23:53:29 +0100 (CET)
Received: from balefirehome (balefire.demon.nl [212.238.240.59])
	by romeo.computel.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF50514036;
	Sat, 24 Dec 2005 23:53:28 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <001301c608dc$f9b2cdb0$64c8a8c0@balefirehome>
From: "Sander Steffann" <steffann@nederland.net>
To: <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>, "Ron" <rjpeace@earthlink.net>
References: <43A84D03.7090002@ritek.hu> <docq5v$24ea$1@news.hub.org>
	<200512212209.50234.caseroj@comcast.net>
	<200512212231.55100.caseroj@comcast.net>
	<20051224135042.484c6e32.frank@wiles.org>
	<6.2.5.6.0.20051224161551.01dc5d98@earthlink.net>
	<43ADC0A8.20503@commandprompt.com>
	<6.2.5.6.0.20051224171301.01dd4e00@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: What's the best hardver for PostgreSQL 8.1?
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 23:54:19 +0100
Organization: Computel Standby BV
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2670
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 required=5 tests=[none]
X-Spam-Score: 0
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200512/602
X-Sequence-Number: 16423

Hi,

> b= Once a HD failure takes place, you suffer a _permenent_ performance 
> drop, even after the automatic volume rebuild, until you take the entire 
> RAID 50 array off line, reinitialize it, and rebuild it from scratch.

Where did you get that crazy idea? When you have replaced the drive and the 
RAID is rebuilt, you have exactly the same situation as before the drive 
failed. Why would you get less performance?
Sander.