From: Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 10:25:59 -0400
Message-ID: <20070530142556.GB1785@mathom.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <C282D30E.31B69%llonergan@greenplum.com>
References: <a2de01dd0705300029t52ceb76fx25c3ad67db0c43c0@mail.gmail.com>
<C282D30E.31B69%llonergan@greenplum.com>
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 07:06:54AM -0700, Luke Lonergan wrote:
>On 5/30/07 12:29 AM, "Peter Childs" <peterachilds@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Good point, also if you had Raid 1 with 3 drives with some bit errors at least
>> you can take a vote on whats right. Where as if you only have 2 and they
>> disagree how do you know which is right other than pick one and hope... But
>> whatever it will be slower to keep in sync on a heavy write system.
>
>Much better to get a RAID system that checksums blocks so that "good" is
>known. Solaris ZFS does that, as do high end systems from EMC and HDS.
I don't see how that's better at all; in fact, it reduces to exactly the
same problem: given two pieces of data which disagree, which is right?
The ZFS hashes do a better job of error detection, but that's still not
the same thing as a voting system (3 copies, 2 of 3 is correct answer)
to resolve inconsistencies.
Mike Stone
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: mstone+postgres@mathom.us
Subject: Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives
In-Reply-To: <20070530142556.GB1785@mathom.us>
* 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