Am 2005-11-15 13:45:24, schrieb Jim C. Nasby:
> You'll be better off googling for "raid5 performance", but in a nutshell
> write performance on raid5 is horrible. If you database is read-only
> then that shouldn't be an issue, but as soon as you start writing much
> at all you'll probably be unhappy with the performance.
OK, I have per day only around 50-120 MByte new data which
must be replicated between the 3 Servers. But on the other
hand I have enormous READ requests, which mean, on my old
backbone I had around 5-12 GByte per day in the middle.
But now, the database is growing and...
> As for hardware, what is your application? If your choice is between
> SCSI raid5 and SATA raid10, you're probably better off with the SATA
> raid10.
It is a 7 years old SUN Server with 6 Raid-5 of 1 TByte
(each 16x 76GB SCSI)
Forget it with SATA, because they arte no 300 GByte drives
with 15.000 RPM availlable and SATA with PATA Hardware is
the hell.
If you need ONLY storage for STATIC documents (I have several
TBytes in addition to my PostgreSQL) then SATA-Drives with 400
or 500 GByte are fine with 3Ware 3w95xxS-12 Controllers.
I have one running, which has curently 6x 400 GByte SATA.
In the next time I will install the missing 6x 500 GByte Drives.
> PostgreSQL doesn't have any kind of native clustering (depending on your
> definition of clustering), but you might be able to roll your own
> depending on your application.
>
> I didn't know they were even making 300GB SCSI drives...
They are relativ new...
Greetings
Michelle
--
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886
50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi
0033/3/88452356 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)
