Received: from localhost (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38E929FBAB9 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:55:50 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 32252-03 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:55:44 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from cronos.madness.at (madness.at [217.196.146.217]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D69F79FBAA5 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:55:45 -0400 (AST) Received: from congw.dc1.conova.com ([217.196.145.250] helo=[192.168.1.61]) by cronos.madness.at with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HM2qI-0008PV-2l; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:58:14 +0100 Message-ID: <45E43878.5000305@kaltenbrunner.cc> Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:56:08 +0100 From: Stefan Kaltenbrunner User-Agent: Icedove 1.5.0.9 (X11/20061220) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joe Uhl CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Opinions on Raid References: <1172581920.28858.1176750095@webmail.messagingengine.com> In-Reply-To: <1172581920.28858.1176750095@webmail.messagingengine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, BAYES_40, FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200702/321 X-Sequence-Number: 23375 Joe Uhl wrote: > We have been running Postgres on a 2U server with 2 disks configured in > raid 1 for the os and logs and 4 disks configured in raid 10 for the > data. I have since been told raid 5 would have been a better option > given our usage of Dell equipment and the way they handle raid 10. I > have just a few general questions about raid with respect to Postgres: > > [1] What is the performance penalty of software raid over hardware raid? > Is it truly significant? We will be working with 100s of GB to 1-2 TB > of data eventually. this depends a lot on the raidcontroller (whether it has or not BBWC for example) - for some use-cases softwareraid is actually faster(especially for seq-io tests). > > [2] How do people on this list monitor their hardware raid? Thus far we > have used Dell and the only way to easily monitor disk status is to use > their openmanage application. Do other controllers offer easier means > of monitoring individual disks in a raid configuration? It seems one > advantage software raid has is the ease of monitoring. well the answer to that question depends on what you are using for your network monitoring as a whole as well as your Platform of choice. If you use say nagios and Linux it makes sense to use a nagios plugin (we do that here with a unified check script that checks everything from LSI-MPT based raid cards, over IBMs ServeRAID, HPs Smartarray,LSI MegaRAID cards and also Linux/Solaris Software RAID). If you are using another monitoring solution(OpenView, IBM Directory,...) your solution might look different. Stefan