pg.ddx.io pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feedsetting up raid10 with more than 4 drives
27+ messages / 13 participants
[nested] [flat]
* setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives
@ 2007-05-29 21:14 Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
2007-05-29 21:50 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread
From: Rajesh Kumar Mallah @ 2007-05-29 21:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-performance
hi,
this is not really postgresql specific, but any help is appreciated.
i have read more spindles the better it is for IO performance.
suppose i have 8 drives , should a stripe (raid0) be created on
2 mirrors (raid1) of 4 drives each OR should a stripe on 4 mirrors
of 2 drives each be created ?
also does single channel or dual channel controllers makes lot
of difference in raid10 performance ?
regds
mallah.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives
2007-05-29 21:14 setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
@ 2007-05-29 21:50 ` Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 02:18 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread
From: Luke Lonergan @ 2007-05-29 21:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>; pgsql-performance
Stripe of mirrors is preferred to mirror of stripes for the best balance of
protection and performance.
In the stripe of mirrors you can lose up to half of the disks and still be
operational. In the mirror of stripes, the most you could lose is two
drives. The performance of the two should be similar - perhaps the seek
performance would be different for high concurrent use in PG.
- Luke
On 5/29/07 2:14 PM, "Rajesh Kumar Mallah" <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com> wrote:
> hi,
>
> this is not really postgresql specific, but any help is appreciated.
> i have read more spindles the better it is for IO performance.
>
> suppose i have 8 drives , should a stripe (raid0) be created on
> 2 mirrors (raid1) of 4 drives each OR should a stripe on 4 mirrors
> of 2 drives each be created ?
>
> also does single channel or dual channel controllers makes lot
> of difference in raid10 performance ?
>
> regds
> mallah.
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
> choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
> match
>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives
2007-05-29 21:14 setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
2007-05-29 21:50 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
@ 2007-05-30 02:18 ` Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
2007-05-30 03:26 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread
From: Rajesh Kumar Mallah @ 2007-05-30 02:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>; +Cc: pgsql-performance
On 5/30/07, Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com> wrote:
> Stripe of mirrors is preferred to mirror of stripes for the best balance of
> protection and performance.
nooo! i am not aksing raid10 vs raid01 . I am considering stripe of
mirrors only.
the question is how are more number of disks supposed to be
BEST utilized in terms of IO performance for
1. for adding more mirrored stripes OR
2. for adding more harddrives to the mirrors.
say i had 4 drives in raid10 format
D1 raid1 D2 --> MD0
D3 raid1 D4 --> MD1
MD0 raid0 MD1 --> MDF (final)
now i get 2 drives D5 and D6 the i got 2 options
1. create a new mirror
D5 raid1 D6 --> MD2
MD0 raid0 MD1 raid0 MD2 --> MDF final
OR
D1 raid1 D2 raid1 D5 --> MD0
D3 raid1 D4 raid1 D6 --> MD1
MD0 raid0 MD1 --> MDF (final)
thanks , hope my question is clear now.
Regds
mallah.
>
> In the stripe of mirrors you can lose up to half of the disks and still be
> operational. In the mirror of stripes, the most you could lose is two
> drives. The performance of the two should be similar - perhaps the seek
> performance would be different for high concurrent use in PG.
>
> - Luke
>
>
> On 5/29/07 2:14 PM, "Rajesh Kumar Mallah" <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > hi,
> >
> > this is not really postgresql specific, but any help is appreciated.
> > i have read more spindles the better it is for IO performance.
> >
> > suppose i have 8 drives , should a stripe (raid0) be created on
> > 2 mirrors (raid1) of 4 drives each OR should a stripe on 4 mirrors
> > of 2 drives each be created ?
> >
> > also does single channel or dual channel controllers makes lot
> > of difference in raid10 performance ?
> >
> > regds
> > mallah.
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
> > choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
> > match
> >
>
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives
2007-05-29 21:14 setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
2007-05-29 21:50 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 02:18 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
@ 2007-05-30 03:26 ` Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 03:31 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
2007-05-30 04:41 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Jonah H. Harris <jonah.harris@gmail.com>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: Luke Lonergan @ 2007-05-30 03:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>; +Cc: pgsql-performance
Hi Rajesh,
On 5/29/07 7:18 PM, "Rajesh Kumar Mallah" <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com> wrote:
> D1 raid1 D2 raid1 D5 --> MD0
> D3 raid1 D4 raid1 D6 --> MD1
> MD0 raid0 MD1 --> MDF (final)
AFAIK you can't RAID1 more than two drives, so the above doesn't make sense
to me.
- Luke
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives
2007-05-29 21:14 setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
2007-05-29 21:50 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 02:18 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
2007-05-30 03:26 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
@ 2007-05-30 03:31 ` Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
2007-05-30 03:49 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Frost @ 2007-05-30 03:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>; +Cc: Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>; pgsql-performance
* Luke Lonergan (llonergan@greenplum.com) wrote:
> Hi Rajesh,
>
> On 5/29/07 7:18 PM, "Rajesh Kumar Mallah" <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > D1 raid1 D2 raid1 D5 --> MD0
> > D3 raid1 D4 raid1 D6 --> MD1
> > MD0 raid0 MD1 --> MDF (final)
>
> AFAIK you can't RAID1 more than two drives, so the above doesn't make sense
> to me.
It's just more copies of the same data if it's really a RAID1, for the
extra, extra paranoid. Basically, in the example above, I'd read it as
"D1, D2, D5 have identical data on them".
Thanks,
Stephen
Attachments:
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 188B) download
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives
2007-05-29 21:14 setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
2007-05-29 21:50 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 02:18 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
2007-05-30 03:26 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 03:31 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
@ 2007-05-30 03:49 ` Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: Luke Lonergan @ 2007-05-30 03:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>; +Cc: Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>; pgsql-performance
Stephen,
On 5/29/07 8:31 PM, "Stephen Frost" <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> It's just more copies of the same data if it's really a RAID1, for the
> extra, extra paranoid. Basically, in the example above, I'd read it as
> "D1, D2, D5 have identical data on them".
In that case, I'd say it's a waste of disk to add 1+2 redundancy to the
mirrors.
- Luke
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives
2007-05-29 21:14 setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
2007-05-29 21:50 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 02:18 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
2007-05-30 03:26 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
@ 2007-05-30 04:41 ` Jonah H. Harris <jonah.harris@gmail.com>
2007-05-30 05:30 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives david@lang.hm
2007-05-30 12:08 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>
2007-05-31 22:39 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Steinar H. Gunderson <sgunderson@bigfoot.com>
1 sibling, 3 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: Jonah H. Harris @ 2007-05-30 04:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>; +Cc: Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>; pgsql-performance
On 5/29/07, Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com> wrote:
> AFAIK you can't RAID1 more than two drives, so the above doesn't make sense
> to me.
Yeah, I've never seen a way to RAID-1 more than 2 drives either. It
would have to be his first one:
D1 + D2 = MD0 (RAID 1)
D3 + D4 = MD1 ...
D5 + D6 = MD2 ...
MD0 + MD1 + MD2 = MDF (RAID 0)
--
Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324
EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301
33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor | jharris@enterprisedb.com
Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives
2007-05-29 21:14 setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
2007-05-29 21:50 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 02:18 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
2007-05-30 03:26 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 04:41 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Jonah H. Harris <jonah.harris@gmail.com>
@ 2007-05-30 05:30 ` david@lang.hm
2007-05-30 07:29 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Peter Childs <peterachilds@gmail.com>
2 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread
From: david@lang.hm @ 2007-05-30 05:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonah H. Harris <jonah.harris@gmail.com>; +Cc: Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>; Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>; pgsql-performance
On Wed, 30 May 2007, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> On 5/29/07, Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com> wrote:
>> AFAIK you can't RAID1 more than two drives, so the above doesn't make
>> sense
>> to me.
>
> Yeah, I've never seen a way to RAID-1 more than 2 drives either. It
> would have to be his first one:
>
> D1 + D2 = MD0 (RAID 1)
> D3 + D4 = MD1 ...
> D5 + D6 = MD2 ...
> MD0 + MD1 + MD2 = MDF (RAID 0)
>
I don't know what the failure mode ends up being, but on linux I had no
problems creating what appears to be a massively redundant (but small) array
md0 : active raid1 sdo1[10](S) sdn1[8] sdm1[7] sdl1[6] sdk1[5] sdj1[4] sdi1[3] sdh1[2] sdg1[9] sdf1[1] sde1[11](S) sdd1[0]
896 blocks [10/10] [UUUUUUUUUU]
David Lang
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives
2007-05-29 21:14 setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
2007-05-29 21:50 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 02:18 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
2007-05-30 03:26 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 04:41 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Jonah H. Harris <jonah.harris@gmail.com>
2007-05-30 05:30 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives david@lang.hm
@ 2007-05-30 07:29 ` Peter Childs <peterachilds@gmail.com>
2007-05-30 10:42 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
2007-05-30 14:06 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: Peter Childs @ 2007-05-30 07:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ; +Cc: pgsql-performance
On 30/05/07, david@lang.hm <david@lang.hm> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 30 May 2007, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
>
> > On 5/29/07, Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com> wrote:
> >> AFAIK you can't RAID1 more than two drives, so the above doesn't make
> >> sense
> >> to me.
> >
> > Yeah, I've never seen a way to RAID-1 more than 2 drives either. It
> > would have to be his first one:
> >
> > D1 + D2 = MD0 (RAID 1)
> > D3 + D4 = MD1 ...
> > D5 + D6 = MD2 ...
> > MD0 + MD1 + MD2 = MDF (RAID 0)
> >
>
> I don't know what the failure mode ends up being, but on linux I had no
> problems creating what appears to be a massively redundant (but small)
> array
>
> md0 : active raid1 sdo1[10](S) sdn1[8] sdm1[7] sdl1[6] sdk1[5] sdj1[4]
> sdi1[3] sdh1[2] sdg1[9] sdf1[1] sde1[11](S) sdd1[0]
> 896 blocks [10/10] [UUUUUUUUUU]
>
> David Lang
>
>
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.
Peter.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives
2007-05-29 21:14 setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
2007-05-29 21:50 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 02:18 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
2007-05-30 03:26 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 04:41 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Jonah H. Harris <jonah.harris@gmail.com>
2007-05-30 05:30 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives david@lang.hm
2007-05-30 07:29 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Peter Childs <peterachilds@gmail.com>
@ 2007-05-30 10:42 ` Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Frost @ 2007-05-30 10:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Childs <peterachilds@gmail.com>; +Cc: pgsql-performance
* 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.
I'm not sure, but I don't think most RAID1 systems do reads against all
drives and compare the results before returning it to the caller... I'd
be curious if I'm wrong.
Thanks,
Stephen
Attachments:
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 188B) download
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives
2007-05-29 21:14 setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
2007-05-29 21:50 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 02:18 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
2007-05-30 03:26 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 04:41 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Jonah H. Harris <jonah.harris@gmail.com>
2007-05-30 05:30 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives david@lang.hm
2007-05-30 07:29 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Peter Childs <peterachilds@gmail.com>
@ 2007-05-30 14:06 ` Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 14:25 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread
From: Luke Lonergan @ 2007-05-30 14:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Childs <peterachilds@gmail.com>; +Cc: pgsql-performance
Hi Peter,
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.
- Luke
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives
2007-05-29 21:14 setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
2007-05-29 21:50 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 02:18 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
2007-05-30 03:26 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 04:41 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Jonah H. Harris <jonah.harris@gmail.com>
2007-05-30 05:30 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives david@lang.hm
2007-05-30 07:29 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Peter Childs <peterachilds@gmail.com>
2007-05-30 14:06 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
@ 2007-05-30 14:25 ` Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>
2007-05-30 14:36 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <LLonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 15:23 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: Michael Stone @ 2007-05-30 14:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-performance
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
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives
2007-05-29 21:14 setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
2007-05-29 21:50 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 02:18 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
2007-05-30 03:26 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 04:41 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Jonah H. Harris <jonah.harris@gmail.com>
2007-05-30 05:30 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives david@lang.hm
2007-05-30 07:29 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Peter Childs <peterachilds@gmail.com>
2007-05-30 14:06 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 14:25 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>
@ 2007-05-30 14:36 ` Luke Lonergan <LLonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 15:09 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>
2007-05-30 15:31 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives PFC <lists@peufeu.com>
2007-05-30 15:40 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives PFC <lists@peufeu.com>
1 sibling, 3 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: Luke Lonergan @ 2007-05-30 14:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>; pgsql-performance
> 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 one that matches the checksum.
- Luke
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives
2007-05-29 21:14 setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
2007-05-29 21:50 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 02:18 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
2007-05-30 03:26 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 04:41 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Jonah H. Harris <jonah.harris@gmail.com>
2007-05-30 05:30 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives david@lang.hm
2007-05-30 07:29 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Peter Childs <peterachilds@gmail.com>
2007-05-30 14:06 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 14:25 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>
2007-05-30 14:36 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <LLonergan@greenplum.com>
@ 2007-05-30 15:09 ` Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>
2 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: Michael Stone @ 2007-05-30 15:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-performance
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 10:36:48AM -0400, Luke Lonergan wrote:
>> 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 one that matches the checksum.
And you know the checksum is good, how?
Mike Stone
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives
2007-05-29 21:14 setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
2007-05-29 21:50 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 02:18 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
2007-05-30 03:26 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 04:41 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Jonah H. Harris <jonah.harris@gmail.com>
2007-05-30 05:30 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives david@lang.hm
2007-05-30 07:29 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Peter Childs <peterachilds@gmail.com>
2007-05-30 14:06 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 14:25 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>
2007-05-30 14:36 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <LLonergan@greenplum.com>
@ 2007-05-30 15:31 ` PFC <lists@peufeu.com>
2 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: PFC @ 2007-05-30 15:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Luke Lonergan <LLonergan@greenplum.com>; Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>; pgsql-performance
On Wed, 30 May 2007 16:36:48 +0200, Luke Lonergan
<LLonergan@greenplum.com> wrote:
>> 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 one that matches the checksum.
- postgres tells OS "write this block"
- OS sends block to drives A and B
- drive A happens to be lucky and seeks faster, writes data
- student intern carrying pizzas for senior IT staff trips over power
cord*
- boom
- drive B still has old block
Both blocks have correct checksum, so only a version counter/timestamp
could tell.
Fortunately if fsync() is honored correctly (did you check ?) postgres
will zap such errors in recovery.
Smart RAID1 or 0+1 controllers (including software RAID) will distribute
random reads to both disks (but not writes obviously).
* = this happened at my old job, yes they had a very frightening server
room, or more precisely "cave" ; I never went there, I didn't want to be
the one fired for tripping over the wire...
From Linux Software RAID howto :
- benchmarking (quite brief !)
http://unthought.net/Software-RAID.HOWTO/Software-RAID.HOWTO-9.html#ss9.5
- read "Data Scrubbing" here :
http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Install_on_Software_RAID
- yeah but does it work ? (scary)
http://bugs.donarmstrong.com/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=405919
md/sync_action
This can be used to monitor and control the resync/recovery
process of MD. In particular, writing "check" here will cause
the array to read all data block and check that they are
consistent (e.g. parity is correct, or all mirror replicas are
the same). Any discrepancies found are NOT corrected.
A count of problems found will be stored in md/mismatch_count.
Alternately, "repair" can be written which will cause the same
check to be performed, but any errors will be corrected.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives
2007-05-29 21:14 setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
2007-05-29 21:50 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 02:18 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
2007-05-30 03:26 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 04:41 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Jonah H. Harris <jonah.harris@gmail.com>
2007-05-30 05:30 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives david@lang.hm
2007-05-30 07:29 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Peter Childs <peterachilds@gmail.com>
2007-05-30 14:06 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 14:25 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>
2007-05-30 14:36 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <LLonergan@greenplum.com>
@ 2007-05-30 15:40 ` PFC <lists@peufeu.com>
2 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: PFC @ 2007-05-30 15:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Luke Lonergan <LLonergan@greenplum.com>; Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>; pgsql-performance
Oh by the way, I saw a nifty patch in the queue :
Find a way to reduce rotational delay when repeatedly writing last WAL page
Currently fsync of WAL requires the disk platter to perform a full
rotation to fsync again.
One idea is to write the WAL to different offsets that might reduce the
rotational delay.
This will not work if the WAL is on RAID1, because two disks never spin
exactly at the same speed...
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives
2007-05-29 21:14 setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
2007-05-29 21:50 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 02:18 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
2007-05-30 03:26 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 04:41 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Jonah H. Harris <jonah.harris@gmail.com>
2007-05-30 05:30 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives david@lang.hm
2007-05-30 07:29 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Peter Childs <peterachilds@gmail.com>
2007-05-30 14:06 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 14:25 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>
@ 2007-05-30 15:23 ` Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: Gregory Stark @ 2007-05-30 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-performance
"Michael Stone" <mstone+postgres@mathom.us> writes:
"Michael Stone" <mstone+postgres@mathom.us> writes:
> On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 07:06:54AM -0700, Luke Lonergan wrote:
>
> > 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?
Well, the one where the checksum is correct.
In practice I've never seen a RAID failure due to outright bad data. In my
experience when a drive goes bad it goes really bad and you can't read the
block at all without i/o errors.
In every case where I've seen bad data it was due to bad memory (in one case
bad memory in the RAID controller cache -- that was hell to track down).
Checksums aren't even enough in that case as you'll happily generate a
checksum for the bad data before storing it...
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives
2007-05-29 21:14 setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
2007-05-29 21:50 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 02:18 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
2007-05-30 03:26 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 04:41 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Jonah H. Harris <jonah.harris@gmail.com>
@ 2007-05-30 12:08 ` Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>
2 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: Gregory Stark @ 2007-05-30 12:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonah H. Harris <jonah.harris@gmail.com>; +Cc: Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>; Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>; pgsql-performance
"Jonah H. Harris" <jonah.harris@gmail.com> writes:
> On 5/29/07, Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com> wrote:
>> AFAIK you can't RAID1 more than two drives, so the above doesn't make sense
>> to me.
Sure you can. In fact it's a very common backup strategy. You build a
three-way mirror and then when it comes time to back it up you break it into a
two-way mirror and back up the orphaned array at your leisure. When it's done
you re-add it and rebuild the degraded array. Good raid controllers can
rebuild the array at low priority squeezing in the reads in idle cycles.
I don't think you normally do it for performance though since there's more to
be gained by using larger stripes. In theory you should get the same boost on
reads as widening your stripes but of course you get no benefit on writes. And
I'm not sure raid controllers optimize raid1 accesses well in practice either.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives
2007-05-29 21:14 setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
2007-05-29 21:50 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 02:18 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
2007-05-30 03:26 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 04:41 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Jonah H. Harris <jonah.harris@gmail.com>
@ 2007-05-31 22:39 ` Steinar H. Gunderson <sgunderson@bigfoot.com>
2007-05-31 22:54 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Sander Steffann <s.steffann@computel.nl>
2 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread
From: Steinar H. Gunderson @ 2007-05-31 22:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-performance
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 12:41:46AM -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> Yeah, I've never seen a way to RAID-1 more than 2 drives either.
pannekake:~> grep -A 1 md0 /proc/mdstat
md0 : active raid1 dm-20[2] dm-19[1] dm-18[0]
64128 blocks [3/3] [UUU]
It's not a big device, but I can ensure you it exists :-)
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives
2007-05-29 21:14 setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
2007-05-29 21:50 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 02:18 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
2007-05-30 03:26 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 04:41 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Jonah H. Harris <jonah.harris@gmail.com>
2007-05-31 22:39 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Steinar H. Gunderson <sgunderson@bigfoot.com>
@ 2007-05-31 22:54 ` Sander Steffann <s.steffann@computel.nl>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: Sander Steffann @ 2007-05-31 22:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Steinar H.Gunderson <sgunderson@bigfoot.com>; +Cc: pgsql-performance
Hi,
Op 1-jun-2007, om 1:39 heeft Steinar H. Gunderson het volgende
geschreven:
> On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 12:41:46AM -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
>> Yeah, I've never seen a way to RAID-1 more than 2 drives either.
>
> pannekake:~> grep -A 1 md0 /proc/mdstat
> md0 : active raid1 dm-20[2] dm-19[1] dm-18[0]
> 64128 blocks [3/3] [UUU]
>
> It's not a big device, but I can ensure you it exists :-)
I talked to someone yesterday who did a 10 or 11 way RAID1 with Linux
MD for high performance video streaming. Seemed to work very well.
- Sander
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives
@ 2007-05-30 15:21 Luke Lonergan <LLonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 15:51 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread
From: Luke Lonergan @ 2007-05-30 15:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>; pgsql-performance
It's created when the data is written to both drives.
This is standard stuff, very well proven: try googling 'self healing zfs'.
- Luke
Msg is shrt cuz m on ma treo
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Stone [mailto:mstone+postgres@mathom.us]
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 11:11 AM Eastern Standard Time
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 10:36:48AM -0400, Luke Lonergan wrote:
>> 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 one that matches the checksum.
And you know the checksum is good, how?
Mike Stone
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives
2007-05-30 15:21 Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <LLonergan@greenplum.com>
@ 2007-05-30 15:51 ` Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 15:57 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives mark@mark.mielke.cc
0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread
From: Luke Lonergan @ 2007-05-30 15:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>; pgsql-performance
> This is standard stuff, very well proven: try googling 'self healing zfs'.
The first hit on this search is a demo of ZFS detecting corruption of one of
the mirror pair using checksums, very cool:
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/demos/selfheal/;jsessionid=52508
D464883F194061E341F58F4E7E1
The bad drive is pointed out directly using the checksum and the data
integrity is preserved.
- Luke
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives
2007-05-30 15:21 Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <LLonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 15:51 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
@ 2007-05-30 15:57 ` mark@mark.mielke.cc
2007-05-30 19:58 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
2007-05-30 20:18 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: mark@mark.mielke.cc @ 2007-05-30 15:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>; +Cc: Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>; pgsql-performance
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 08:51:45AM -0700, Luke Lonergan wrote:
> > This is standard stuff, very well proven: try googling 'self healing zfs'.
> The first hit on this search is a demo of ZFS detecting corruption of one of
> the mirror pair using checksums, very cool:
>
> http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/demos/selfheal/;jsessionid=52508
> D464883F194061E341F58F4E7E1
>
> The bad drive is pointed out directly using the checksum and the data
> integrity is preserved.
One part is corruption. Another is ordering and consistency. ZFS represents
both RAID-style storage *and* journal-style file system. I imagine consistency
and ordering is handled through journalling.
Cheers,
mark
--
mark@mielke.cc / markm@ncf.ca / markm@nortel.com __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives
2007-05-30 15:21 Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <LLonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 15:51 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 15:57 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives mark@mark.mielke.cc
@ 2007-05-30 19:58 ` Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
2007-05-30 20:41 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives mark@mark.mielke.cc
1 sibling, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread
From: Rajesh Kumar Mallah @ 2007-05-30 19:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mark@mark.mielke.cc <mark@mark.mielke.cc>; +Cc: Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>; Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>; pgsql-performance
Sorry for posting and disappearing.
i am still not clear what is the best way of throwing in more
disks into the system.
does more stripes means more performance (mostly) ?
also is there any thumb rule about best stripe size ? (8k,16k,32k...)
regds
mallah
On 5/30/07, mark@mark.mielke.cc <mark@mark.mielke.cc> wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 08:51:45AM -0700, Luke Lonergan wrote:
> > > This is standard stuff, very well proven: try googling 'self healing zfs'.
> > The first hit on this search is a demo of ZFS detecting corruption of one of
> > the mirror pair using checksums, very cool:
> >
> > http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/demos/selfheal/;jsessionid=52508
> > D464883F194061E341F58F4E7E1
> >
> > The bad drive is pointed out directly using the checksum and the data
> > integrity is preserved.
>
> One part is corruption. Another is ordering and consistency. ZFS represents
> both RAID-style storage *and* journal-style file system. I imagine consistency
> and ordering is handled through journalling.
>
> Cheers,
> mark
>
> --
> mark@mielke.cc / markm@ncf.ca / markm@nortel.com __________________________
> . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
> |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
> | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
>
> One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
> and in the darkness bind them...
>
> http://mark.mielke.cc/
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives
2007-05-30 15:21 Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <LLonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 15:51 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 15:57 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives mark@mark.mielke.cc
2007-05-30 19:58 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
@ 2007-05-30 20:41 ` mark@mark.mielke.cc
2007-05-31 01:54 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread
From: mark@mark.mielke.cc @ 2007-05-30 20:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>; +Cc: Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>; Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>; pgsql-performance
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 01:28:58AM +0530, Rajesh Kumar Mallah wrote:
> i am still not clear what is the best way of throwing in more
> disks into the system.
> does more stripes means more performance (mostly) ?
> also is there any thumb rule about best stripe size ? (8k,16k,32k...)
It isn't that simple. RAID1 should theoretically give you the best read
performance. If all you care about is read, then "best performance" would
be to add more mirrors to your array.
For write performance, RAID0 is the best. I think this is what you mean
by "more stripes".
This is where RAID 1+0/0+1 come in. To reconcile the above. Your question
seems to be: I have a RAID 1+0/0+1 system. Should I add disks onto the 0
part of the array? Or the 1 part of the array?
My conclusion to you would be: Both, unless you are certain that you load
is scaled heavily towards read, in which case the 1, or if scaled heavily
towards write, then 0.
Then comes the other factors. Do you want redundancy? Then you want 1.
Do you want capacity? Then you want 0.
There is no single answer for most people.
For me, stripe size is the last decision to make, and may be heavily
sensitive to load patterns. This suggests a trial and error / benchmarking
requirement to determine the optimal stripe size for your use.
Cheers,
mark
--
mark@mielke.cc / markm@ncf.ca / markm@nortel.com __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives
2007-05-30 15:21 Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <LLonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 15:51 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 15:57 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives mark@mark.mielke.cc
2007-05-30 19:58 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
2007-05-30 20:41 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives mark@mark.mielke.cc
@ 2007-05-31 01:54 ` Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: Rajesh Kumar Mallah @ 2007-05-31 01:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mark@mark.mielke.cc <mark@mark.mielke.cc>; +Cc: Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>; Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>; pgsql-performance
On 5/31/07, mark@mark.mielke.cc <mark@mark.mielke.cc> wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 01:28:58AM +0530, Rajesh Kumar Mallah wrote:
> > i am still not clear what is the best way of throwing in more
> > disks into the system.
> > does more stripes means more performance (mostly) ?
> > also is there any thumb rule about best stripe size ? (8k,16k,32k...)
>
> It isn't that simple. RAID1 should theoretically give you the best read
> performance. If all you care about is read, then "best performance" would
> be to add more mirrors to your array.
>
> For write performance, RAID0 is the best. I think this is what you mean
> by "more stripes".
>
> This is where RAID 1+0/0+1 come in. To reconcile the above. Your question
> seems to be: I have a RAID 1+0/0+1 system. Should I add disks onto the 0
> part of the array? Or the 1 part of the array?
> My conclusion to you would be: Both, unless you are certain that you load
> is scaled heavily towards read, in which case the 1, or if scaled heavily
> towards write, then 0.
thanks . this answers to my query. all the time i was thinking of 1+0
only failing to observe the 0+1 part in it.
>
> Then comes the other factors. Do you want redundancy? Then you want 1.
> Do you want capacity? Then you want 0.
Ok.
>
> There is no single answer for most people.
>
> For me, stripe size is the last decision to make, and may be heavily
> sensitive to load patterns. This suggests a trial and error / benchmarking
> requirement to determine the optimal stripe size for your use.
thanks.
mallah.
>
> Cheers,
> mark
>
> --
> mark@mielke.cc / markm@ncf.ca / markm@nortel.com __________________________
> . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
> |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
> | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
>
> One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
> and in the darkness bind them...
>
> http://mark.mielke.cc/
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives
2007-05-30 15:21 Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <LLonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 15:51 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 15:57 ` Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives mark@mark.mielke.cc
@ 2007-05-30 20:18 ` Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: Luke Lonergan @ 2007-05-30 20:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mark@mark.mielke.cc; +Cc: Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>; pgsql-performance
Mark,
On 5/30/07 8:57 AM, "mark@mark.mielke.cc" <mark@mark.mielke.cc> wrote:
> One part is corruption. Another is ordering and consistency. ZFS represents
> both RAID-style storage *and* journal-style file system. I imagine consistency
> and ordering is handled through journalling.
Yep and versioning, which answers PFC's scenario.
Short answer: ZFS has a very reliable model that uses checksumming and
journaling along with block versioning to implement "self healing". There
are others that do some similar things with checksumming on the SAN HW and
cooperation with the filesystem.
- Luke
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 27+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-05-31 22:54 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-05-29 21:14 setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
2007-05-29 21:50 ` Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 02:18 ` Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
2007-05-30 03:26 ` Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 03:31 ` Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
2007-05-30 03:49 ` Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 04:41 ` Jonah H. Harris <jonah.harris@gmail.com>
2007-05-30 05:30 ` david@lang.hm
2007-05-30 07:29 ` Peter Childs <peterachilds@gmail.com>
2007-05-30 10:42 ` Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
2007-05-30 14:06 ` Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 14:25 ` Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>
2007-05-30 14:36 ` Luke Lonergan <LLonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 15:09 ` Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>
2007-05-30 15:31 ` PFC <lists@peufeu.com>
2007-05-30 15:40 ` PFC <lists@peufeu.com>
2007-05-30 15:23 ` Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>
2007-05-30 12:08 ` Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>
2007-05-31 22:39 ` Steinar H. Gunderson <sgunderson@bigfoot.com>
2007-05-31 22:54 ` Sander Steffann <s.steffann@computel.nl>
2007-05-30 15:21 Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Luke Lonergan <LLonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 15:51 ` Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2007-05-30 15:57 ` mark@mark.mielke.cc
2007-05-30 19:58 ` Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
2007-05-30 20:41 ` mark@mark.mielke.cc
2007-05-31 01:54 ` Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
2007-05-30 20:18 ` Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
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