From: Franck Routier <franck.routier@axege.com>
To: pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: 12 disks raid setup
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:51:45 +0100
Message-ID: <1204296705.11773.51.camel@franck-gusty> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <dcc563d10802290613v482f52dr43ea95b52886de31@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1204285894.11773.33.camel@franck-gusty>
<dcc563d10802290613v482f52dr43ea95b52886de31@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
my Raid controller is an Adaptec 31205 SAS/RAID controller. The battery
was an option, but I didn't know it at purchase time. So I have no
battery, but the whole system is on an UPS.
I have done quite a few tests using bonnie++, focusing on 'random seek'
results, and found out that:
1) linux md raid 10 performs better than Adaptec hardware raid in this
field (random seek) by 15%, quite consistently
2) hardware raid is better on sequential output
3) md outperforms it again when coming to sequential read, especially
with far layout option.
So in fact I think I will use md raid, but still don't know with which
layout (3x4 or 1x12).
What would you suggest as a benchmarking method ? Simply issue a few big
queries that I expect to be usual and see how long it last, or is there
a more convinient and or "scientific" method ?
Thanks,
Franck
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: franck.routier@axege.com
Subject: Re: 12 disks raid setup
In-Reply-To: <1204296705.11773.51.camel@franck-gusty>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox