X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B9DD52942 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 16:16:56 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 78044-01 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:16:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sccmmhc92.asp.att.net (sccmmhc92.asp.att.net [204.127.203.212]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CBD752903 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 16:16:53 -0300 (ADT) Received: from juju.arbash-meinel.com ([12.214.18.81]) by sccmmhc92.asp.att.net (sccmmhc92) with ESMTP id <20050816191654m92009jj78e>; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:16:54 +0000 Received: by juju.arbash-meinel.com (Postfix, from userid 505) id 2947255FBA; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 14:16:54 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [192.168.1.119] (71-32-69-23.cdrr.qwest.net [71.32.69.23]) by juju.arbash-meinel.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7CB355FB6; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 14:16:49 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <43023BA0.5030608@arbash-meinel.com> Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 14:16:48 -0500 From: John A Meinel User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Macintosh/20050716) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anjan Dave Cc: mudfoot@rawbw.com, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: choosing RAID level for xlogs References: <4BAFBB6B9CC46F41B2AD7D9F4BBAF785098BE0@vt-pe2550-001.VANTAGE.vantage.com> In-Reply-To: <4BAFBB6B9CC46F41B2AD7D9F4BBAF785098BE0@vt-pe2550-001.VANTAGE.vantage.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.92.0.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig0BC0F093EED0FFC93551C378" X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.037 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.013, FORGED_RCVD_HELO=0.05] X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200508/185 X-Sequence-Number: 13932 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig0BC0F093EED0FFC93551C378 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 =:-> --------------enig0BC0F093EED0FFC93551C378 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDAjugJdeBCYSNAAMRAuRYAKDGHPWXaxLjCySei3LLZ+O/9DuTaQCeIVpM sHxz9K3jdXGZb1lDVGjk7lk= =+TkO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig0BC0F093EED0FFC93551C378--