pg.ddx.io  pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive  
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alex Turner <armtuk@gmail.com>
To: John A Meinel <john@arbash-meinel.com>
Cc: Anjan Dave <adave@vantage.com>
Cc: mudfoot@rawbw.com
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: choosing RAID level for xlogs
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:52:45 -0400
Message-ID: <33c6269f050816125266a62d5d@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <43023BA0.5030608@arbash-meinel.com>
References: <4BAFBB6B9CC46F41B2AD7D9F4BBAF785098BE0@vt-pe2550-001.VANTAGE.vantage.com>
	<43023BA0.5030608@arbash-meinel.com>

Don't forget that often controlers don't obey fsyncs like a plain
drive does.  thats the point of having a BBU ;)

Alex Turner
NetEconomist

On 8/16/05, John A Meinel <john@arbash-meinel.com> wrote:
> Anjan Dave wrote:
> > Yes, that's true, though, I am a bit confused because the Clariion array
> > document I am reading talks about how the write cache can eliminate the
> > RAID5 Write Penalty for sequential and large IOs...resulting in better
> > sequential write performance than RAID10.
> >
> > anjan
> >
> 
> To give a shorter statement after my long one...
> If you have enough cache that the controller can write out big chunks to
> the disk at a time, you can get very good sequential RAID5 performance,
> because the stripe size is large (so it can do a parallel write to all
> disks).
> 
> But for small chunk writes, you suffer the penalty of the read before
> write, and possible multi-disk read (depends on what is in cache).
> 
> RAID10 generally handles small writes better, and I would guess that
> 4disks would perform almost identically to 6disks, since you aren't
> usually writing enough data to span multiple stripes.
> 
> If your battery-backed cache is big enough that you don't fill it, they
> probably perform about the same (superfast) since the cache hides the
> latency of the disks.
> 
> If you start filling up your cache, RAID5 probably can do better because
> of the parallelization.
> 
> But small writes followed by an fsync do favor RAID10 over RAID5.
> 
> John
> =:->
> 
> 
>



view thread (11+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <33c6269f050816125266a62d5d@mail.gmail.com>
Permalink:  ../33c6269f050816125266a62d5d@mail.gmail.com/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/33c6269f050816125266a62d5d@mail.gmail.com

 · 

reply

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: armtuk@gmail.com, john@arbash-meinel.com, adave@vantage.com, mudfoot@rawbw.com
  Subject: Re: choosing RAID level for xlogs
  In-Reply-To: <33c6269f050816125266a62d5d@mail.gmail.com>

* 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