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 67C6E11F714D for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:04:03 -0300 (ADT) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Score: 0.316 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.316 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.316] Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VmK132uenVih for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:03:55 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from noel.decibel.org (noel.decibel.org [67.100.216.10]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E03F11F712D for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:03:56 -0300 (ADT) Received: by noel.decibel.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 17A7B56427; Tue, 18 Apr 2006 16:03:57 -0500 (CDT) Received: (hashcash-sendmail, from uid 1001); Tue, 18 Apr 2006 16:03:56 -0500 Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 16:03:56 -0500 From: "Jim C. Nasby" To: Scott Marlowe Cc: Francisco Reyes , Michael Stone , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Inserts optimization? Message-ID: <20060418210356.GH49405@pervasive.com> References: <443DA715.4060606@gmail.com> <9549.1144903344@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20060414055923.GX49405@pervasive.com> <20060414114911.GG32678@mathom.us> <20060414190620.GH32678@mathom.us> <1145045732.23538.86.camel@state.g2switchworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1145045732.23538.86.camel@state.g2switchworks.com> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 6.0-RELEASE-p4 amd64 X-Distributed: Join the Effort! http://www.distributed.net User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Hashcash: 1:20:060418:smarlowe@g2switchworks.com::rSV6qCi98LdsgO3i:00000000000 00000000000000000000000017LQ X-Hashcash: 1:20:060418:lists@stringsutils.com::ZaXwfD8ruwwKSxur:000000000000000 00000000000000000000000034ii X-Hashcash: 1:20:060418:mstone+postgres@mathom.us::bFlJNLP5YW1QJ6+N:000000000000 0000000000000000000000001Chd X-Hashcash: 1:20:060418:pgsql-performance@postgresql.org::59/+mQwCN0KWVa1l:00000 00000000000000000000000007J3 X-Archive-Number: 200604/397 X-Sequence-Number: 18481 On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 03:15:33PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote: > On Fri, 2006-04-14 at 15:09, Francisco Reyes wrote: > > Michael Stone writes: > > > > > I still don't follow that. Why would the RAID level matter? IOW, are you > > > actually wanting 2 spares, or are you just stick with that because you > > > need a factor of two disks for your mirrors? > > > > RAID 10 needs pairs.. so we can either have no spares or 2 spares. > > Spares are placed in service one at a time. You don't need 2 spares for > RAID 10, trust me. Sadly, 3ware doesn't produce any controllers with the ability to do an odd number of channels, so you end up burning through 2 slots to get a hot spare (unless you spend substantially more money and go with the next model up). -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461