Received: from localhost (maia-4.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 651D19FB797 for ; Wed, 30 May 2007 00:50:31 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 16952-02-3 for ; Wed, 30 May 2007 00:50:30 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from chip2og56.obsmtp.com (chip2og56.obsmtp.com [64.18.13.49]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 02F169FB600 for ; Wed, 30 May 2007 00:50:29 -0300 (ADT) Received: from source ([63.240.6.47]) (using TLSv1) by chip2ob56.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP; Tue, 29 May 2007 20:50:19 PDT Received: from 172.16.1.92 by mail.Mi8.com with ESMTP (- Welcome to Mi8 Corporation www.Mi8.com (D1)); Tue, 29 May 2007 23:50:06 -0400 X-Server-Uuid: 0764DD54-627B-4C45-B37D-789FBDEDA467 Received: from MI8NYCMAIL08.Mi8.com ([172.16.1.165]) by d01smtp08.Mi8.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 29 May 2007 23:50:05 -0400 Received: from 24.23.197.133 ([24.23.197.133]) by MI8NYCMAIL08.Mi8.com ( [172.16.1.190]) via Exchange Front-End Server mi8owa.mi8.com ( [172.16.1.108]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Wed, 30 May 2007 03:49:57 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.3.061214 Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 20:49:56 -0700 Subject: Re: setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives From: "Luke Lonergan" To: "Stephen Frost" cc: "Rajesh Kumar Mallah" , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [PERFORM] setting up raid10 with more than 4 drives Thread-Index: AceibZZL1O8Wfg5gEdyetQAX8s8Cag== In-Reply-To: <20070530033152.GV7531@tamriel.snowman.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 May 2007 03:50:06.0034 (UTC) FILETIME=[9C465B20:01C7A26D] X-WSS-ID: 6A422BE43001981375-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200705/600 X-Sequence-Number: 24990 Stephen, On 5/29/07 8:31 PM, "Stephen Frost" wrote: > It's just more copies of the same data if it's really a RAID1, for the > extra, extra paranoid. Basically, in the example above, I'd read it as > "D1, D2, D5 have identical data on them". In that case, I'd say it's a waste of disk to add 1+2 redundancy to the mirrors. - Luke