From: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
To: Alan Hodgson <ahodgson@simkin.ca>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: dell versus hp
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 17:24:51 -0600
Message-ID: <dcc563d10711081524t7543cdfbk86fad7d099b0b7d1@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200711081256.41880@hal.medialogik.com>
References: <82607932-FC46-4B73-BF78-2290EE55F7F5@pvv.ntnu.no>
<dcc563d10711081022i9a8a64fg2fe00e6159027426@mail.gmail.com>
<200711082114.36788.dfontaine@hi-media.com>
<200711081256.41880@hal.medialogik.com>
On Nov 8, 2007 2:56 PM, Alan Hodgson <ahodgson@simkin.ca> wrote:
> On Thursday 08 November 2007, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine@hi-media.com>
> > Is raid6 better than raid10 in term of overall performances, or a better
> > cut when you need capacity more than throughput?
>
> You can't touch RAID 10 for performance or reliability. The only reason to
> use RAID 5 or RAID 6 is to get more capacity out of the same drives.
Actually, RAID6 is about the same on reliability, since it has double
parity and theoretically ANY TWO disks could fail, and RAID6 will
still have all your data. If the right two disks fail in a RAID-10
you lose everything. Admittedly, that's a pretty remote possibility,
but so it three drives failing at once in a RAID-6.
For performance RAID-10 is still pretty much the best choice.
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: scott.marlowe@gmail.com, ahodgson@simkin.ca
Subject: Re: dell versus hp
In-Reply-To: <dcc563d10711081524t7543cdfbk86fad7d099b0b7d1@mail.gmail.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