Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as expected) - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Alex Turner
Subject Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as expected)
Date
Msg-id 33c6269f0609182040m28ac1e0ei34f617957ac3227a@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as  ("Luke Lonergan" <llonergan@greenplum.com>)
Responses Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as
List pgsql-performance
Sweet - thats good - RAID 10 support seems like an odd thing to leave out.

Alex

On 9/18/06, Luke Lonergan < llonergan@greenplum.com> wrote:
Alex,

On 9/18/06 4:14 PM, "Alex Turner" < armtuk@gmail.com> wrote:

> Be warned, the tech specs page:
> http://www.sun.com/servers/x64/x4500/specs.xml#anchor3
> doesn't mention RAID 10 as a possible, and this is probably what most would
> recommend for fast data access if you are doing both read and write
> operations.  If you are doing mostly Read, then RAID 5 is passable, but it's
> redundancy with large numbers of drives is not so great.

RAID10 works great on the X4500 ­ we get 1.6GB/s + per X4500 using RAID10 in
ZFS.  We worked with the Sun Solaris kernel team to make that happen and the
patches are part of Solaris 10 Update 3 due out in November.

- Luke



pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Marc McIntyre
Date:
Subject: Re: LIKE query problem
Next
From: "Luke Lonergan"
Date:
Subject: Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as