From: Francisco Reyes <lists@stringsutils.com>
To: Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Inserts optimization?
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 14:01:56 -0400
Message-ID: <cone.1145037716.354055.283.5001@35st-server.simplicato.com> (raw)
References: <cone.1144888738.434948.92126.5001@35st-server.simplicato.com>
<443DA715.4060606@gmail.com>
<9549.1144903344@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<cone.1144954763.735087.95544.5001@35st-server.simplicato.com>
<20060414055923.GX49405@pervasive.com>
<cone.1145014225.784898.23930.1000@zoraida.natserv.net>
<20060414114911.GG32678@mathom.us>
Michael Stone writes:
> I guess the first question is why 2 hot spares?
Because we are using RAID 10
> larger array with more spindles with outperform a smaller one with
> fewer, regardless of RAID level (assuming a decent battery-backed
> cache).
Based on what I have read RAID 10 is supposed to be better with lots of
random access.
> 5 RAID5
> 2 RAID1
> 1 spare
That is certainly something worth considering... Still I wonder if 2 more
spindles will help enough to justify going to RAID 5. My understanding is
that RAID10 has simpler computations requirements which is partly what makes
it better for lots of random read/write.
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: lists@stringsutils.com, mstone+postgres@mathom.us
Subject: Re: Inserts optimization?
In-Reply-To: <cone.1145037716.354055.283.5001@35st-server.simplicato.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