From: Mark Wong <markwkm@gmail.com>
To: Henrik <henke@mac.se>
Cc: Luke Lonergan <LLonergan@greenplum.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Filesystem benchmarking for pg 8.3.3 server
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 09:44:33 -0700
Message-ID: <70c01d1d0808080944v4cd985d6r75b5e46ed720bdf7@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <F54DECFD-927B-4F64-B913-E8D903892435@mac.se>
References: <014F2941B0A1EA47BD61D21526B806E903509704@MI8NYCMAIL08.Mi8.com>
<F54DECFD-927B-4F64-B913-E8D903892435@mac.se>
On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 8:08 AM, Henrik <henke@mac.se> wrote:
> But random writes should be faster on a RAID10 as it doesn't need to
> calculate parity. That is why people suggest RAID 10 for datases, correct?
> I can understand that RAID5 can be faster with sequential writes.
There is some data here that does not support that RAID5 can be faster
than RAID10 for sequential writes:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/HP_ProLiant_DL380_G5_Tuning_Guide
Regards,
Mark
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: markwkm@gmail.com, henke@mac.se, LLonergan@greenplum.com
Subject: Re: Filesystem benchmarking for pg 8.3.3 server
In-Reply-To: <70c01d1d0808080944v4cd985d6r75b5e46ed720bdf7@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