X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (wm.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 368989FA25B for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2006 22:15:26 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 64244-02 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2006 01:15:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from mail.mi8.com (d01gw04.mi8.com [63.240.6.44]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82F0D9FA1A1 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2006 22:15:20 -0300 (ADT) Received: from 172.16.1.25 by mail.mi8.com with ESMTP (- Welcome to Mi8 Corporation www.Mi8.com (D4)); Mon, 18 Sep 2006 21:15:11 -0400 X-Server-Uuid: C8FB4D43-1108-484A-A898-3CBCC7906230 Received: from MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com ([172.16.1.175]) by D01HOST03.Mi8.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 18 Sep 2006 21:14:41 -0400 Received: from 63.80.24.130 ([63.80.24.130]) by MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com ( [172.16.1.219]) via Exchange Front-End Server mi8owa.mi8.com ( [172.16.1.118]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Tue, 19 Sep 2006 01:14:41 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.5.060620 Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:14:39 -0700 Subject: Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as From: "Luke Lonergan" To: "Alex Turner" , "Bucky Jordan" cc: "Merlin Moncure" , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [PERFORM] Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as expected) Thread-Index: AcbbiPprOLPDAEd8EduiLAAWy4o9DA== In-Reply-To: <33c6269f0609181614h32d2d379k99b313530ce2ab0f@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Sep 2006 01:14:41.0974 (UTC) FILETIME=[FC30F560:01C6DB88] X-WSS-ID: 69119B142US7922543-07-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200609/241 X-Sequence-Number: 20927 Alex, On 9/18/06 4:14 PM, "Alex Turner" wrote: > Be warned, the tech specs page: > http://www.sun.com/servers/x64/x4500/specs.xml#anchor3 > doesn't mention RAID 10 as a possible, and this is probably what most wou= ld > recommend for fast data access if you are doing both read and write > operations. If you are doing mostly Read, then RAID 5 is passable, but i= t's > redundancy with large numbers of drives is not so great. RAID10 works great on the X4500 =AD we get 1.6GB/s + per X4500 using RAID10 i= n ZFS. We worked with the Sun Solaris kernel team to make that happen and th= e patches are part of Solaris 10 Update 3 due out in November. - Luke