From: Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>
To: Mark Mielke <mark@mark.mielke.cc>
Cc: Fernando Hevia <fhevia@ip-tel.com.ar>
Cc: 'pgsql-performance' <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 13:13:56 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0712261311190.11546@westnet.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <47728000.4000709@mark.mielke.cc>
References: <0ea101c847d2$16f94bc0$8f01010a@iptel.com.ar>
<47728000.4000709@mark.mielke.cc>
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007, Mark Mielke wrote:
> I believe hardware RAID 5 is also horrible, but since the hardware hides
> it from the application, a hardware RAID 5 user might not care.
Typically anything doing hardware RAID 5 also has a reasonable sized write
cache on the controller, which softens the problem a bit. As soon as you
exceed what it can buffer you're back to suffering again.
--
* Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
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: gsmith@gregsmith.com, mark@mark.mielke.cc, fhevia@ip-tel.com.ar
Subject: Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0712261311190.11546@westnet.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