Received: from localhost (maia-1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EE3B9FA3CE for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:41:19 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 34473-08 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:41:13 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from noel.decibel.org (noel.decibel.org [67.100.216.10]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7950C9F9A33 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:41:13 -0300 (ADT) Received: by noel.decibel.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 172BA56510; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:41:05 -0500 (CDT) Received: (hashcash-sendmail, from uid 1001); Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:41:00 -0500 Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:41:00 -0500 From: Decibel! To: tyrrill_ed@emc.com Cc: miki@epoch.co.il, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Integrated perc 5/i Message-ID: <20070816224059.GR54309@nasby.net> References: <5C7C0B0734F87445AFC8B63EDCC4901E015717A7@CORPUSMX60C.corp.emc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="jXoUnAu9pZeaHebo" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5C7C0B0734F87445AFC8B63EDCC4901E015717A7@CORPUSMX60C.corp.emc.com> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 6.1-RELEASE-p10 amd64 X-Distributed: Join the Effort! http://www.distributed.net User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Hashcash: 1:20:070816:tyrrill_ed@emc.com::+L8+EW4Yn0cMlrWD:0000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000wDK X-Hashcash: 1:20:070816:miki@epoch.co.il::fDm4ratLI7VPiR9q:00/jH X-Hashcash: 1:20:070816:pgsql-performance@postgresql.org::zWUYx7Am6E0RdRIX:00000 0000000000000000000000000oWd X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200708/170 X-Sequence-Number: 26300 --jXoUnAu9pZeaHebo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 01:30:11PM -0400, tyrrill_ed@emc.com wrote: > Hi Miki, > by 40%. I have not tried RAID 10 so I cannot help you there. My > suggestion is test both RAID 5 and RAID 10, and report back to us what > you find. Unless you're running something like a data warehouse, I'd put a real low priority on testing RAID5... it's rarely a good idea for a database. --=20 Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby decibel@decibel.org EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell) --jXoUnAu9pZeaHebo Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFGxNJ7dO30qud8SkgRAiTnAJ93DYK5pVegH/htP4MVShfuO6+FEQCbBHXt H6IVXWgRym8K4Nhv3AOSl/k= =pmf+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --jXoUnAu9pZeaHebo--