Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.187])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24A4A2E01AE
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 26 Dec 2007 16:56:02 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 68600-04 for
	<pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 26 Dec 2007 16:55:54 -0400 (AST)
Received: from mail.enyo.de (mail.enyo.de [212.9.189.167])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57C722E016C
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 26 Dec 2007 16:55:57 -0400 (AST)
Received: from deneb.vpn.enyo.de ([212.9.189.177] helo=deneb.enyo.de)
	by mail.enyo.de with esmtp id 1J7dHy-00036g-4J;
	Wed, 26 Dec 2007 21:55:42 +0100
Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.68)
	(envelope-from <fw@deneb.enyo.de>)
	id 1J7dHu-00023K-IG; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 21:55:38 +0100
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
To: david@lang.hm
Cc: Fernando Hevia <fhevia@ip-tel.com.ar>,
	"'Mark Mielke'" <mark@mark.mielke.cc>,
	"'pgsql-performance'" <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10
References: <0f8201c847f6$08e15090$8f01010a@iptel.com.ar>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0712261317320.11785@asgard.lang.hm>
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 21:55:38 +0100
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0712261317320.11785@asgard.lang.hm>
	(david@lang.hm's message of "Wed, 26 Dec 2007 13:28:12 -0800 (PST)")
Message-ID: <87zlvxnpkl.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200712/372
X-Sequence-Number: 28188

> seek/read/calculate/seek/write since the drive moves on after the
> read), when you read you must read _all_ drives in the set to check
> the data integrity.

I don't know of any RAID implementation that performs consistency
checking on each read operation. 8-(