X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB270528C6 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:00:12 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 58363-05 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 18:00:09 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail0.rawbw.com (mail0.rawbw.com [198.144.192.41]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 941BA528B7 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:00:08 -0300 (ADT) Received: (from www@localhost) by mail0.rawbw.com (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) id j7GI08k76560 for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 11:00:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cybs-gw.ic3.com (cybs-gw.ic3.com [66.185.177.10]) by webmail.rawbw.com (IMP) with HTTP for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 11:00:08 -0700 Message-ID: <1124215208.430229a8a9cdd@webmail.rawbw.com> Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 11:00:08 -0700 From: mudfoot@rawbw.com To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: choosing RAID level for xlogs References: <4BAFBB6B9CC46F41B2AD7D9F4BBAF785098BDF@vt-pe2550-001.VANTAGE.vantage.com> In-Reply-To: <4BAFBB6B9CC46F41B2AD7D9F4BBAF785098BDF@vt-pe2550-001.VANTAGE.vantage.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.1 X-Originating-IP: 66.185.177.10 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.178 required=5 tests=[NO_REAL_NAME=0.178] X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200508/180 X-Sequence-Number: 13927 Quoting Anjan Dave : > Hi, > > > > One simple question. For 125 or more checkpoint segments > (checkpoint_timeout is 600 seconds, shared_buffers are at 21760 or > 170MB) on a very busy database, what is more suitable, a separate 6 disk > RAID5 volume, or a RAID10 volume? Databases will be on separate > spindles. Disks are 36GB 15KRPM, 2Gb Fiber Channel. Performance is > paramount, but I don't want to use RAID0. > RAID10 -- no question. xlog activity is overwhelmingly sequential 8KB writes. In order for RAID5 to perform a write, the host (or controller) needs to perform extra calculations for parity. This turns into latency. RAID10 does not perform those extra calculations. > > > PG7.4.7 on RHAS 4.0 > > > > I can provide more info if needed. > > > > Appreciate some recommendations! > > > > Thanks, > > Anjan > > > > > --- > This email message and any included attachments constitute confidential > and privileged information intended exclusively for the listed > addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please notify > Vantage by immediately telephoning 215-579-8390, extension 1158. In > addition, please reply to this message confirming your receipt of the > same in error. A copy of your email reply can also be sent to > support@vantage.com. Please do not disclose, copy, distribute or take > any action in reliance on the contents of this information. Kindly > destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. Any other use of > this email is prohibited. Thank you for your cooperation. For more > information about Vantage, please visit our website at > http://www.vantage.com . > --- > > > >