User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.5.060620
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 20:42:39 -0700
Subject: Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as
From: "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan@greenplum.com>
To: "Alex Turner" <armtuk@gmail.com>
cc: "Bucky Jordan" <bjordan@lumeta.com>,
 "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure@gmail.com>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Message-ID: <C134B53F.31732%llonergan@greenplum.com>
Thread-Topic: [PERFORM] Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as
 expected)
Thread-Index: AcbbnadP5daiZEeQEdu+HQAWy4o9DA==
In-Reply-To: <33c6269f0609182040m28ac1e0ei34f617957ac3227a@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Yep, Solaris ZFS kicks butt.  It does RAID10/5/6, etc and implements most o=
f
the high end features available on high end SANs...

- Luke


On 9/18/06 8:40 PM, "Alex Turner" <armtuk@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sweet - thats good - RAID 10 support seems like an odd thing to leave out=
.
>=20
> Alex
>=20
> On 9/18/06, Luke Lonergan < llonergan@greenplum.com
> <mailto:llonergan@greenplum.com> > wrote:
>> Alex,
>>=20
>> On 9/18/06 4:14 PM, "Alex Turner" < armtuk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>=20
>>> Be warned, the tech specs page:
>>> http://www.sun.com/servers/x64/x4500/specs.xml#anchor3
>>> <http://www.sun.com/servers/x64/x4500/specs.xml#anchor3>
>>> doesn't mention RAID 10 as a possible, and this is probably what most w=
ould
>>> 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=
 it's
>>> redundancy with large numbers of drives is not so great.
>>=20
>> RAID10 works great on the X4500 =AD we get 1.6GB/s + per X4500 using RAID1=
0 in
>> ZFS.  We worked with the Sun Solaris kernel team to make that happen and=
 the
>> patches are part of Solaris 10 Update 3 due out in November.
>>=20
>> - Luke
>>=20
>>=20
>=20
>=20