Re: Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Scott Marlowe
Subject Re: Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows
Date
Msg-id AANLkTi=wPaT_xVU2JGUg_Sc3taOphP0HW487oJHFafXe@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows  (Craig James <craig_james@emolecules.com>)
Responses Re: Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows  (Gael Le Mignot <gael@pilotsystems.net>)
List pgsql-performance
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Craig James
<craig_james@emolecules.com> wrote:
> RAID5 is a Really Bad Idea for any database.  It is S...L...O...W.  It does
> NOT give better redundancy and security; RAID 10 with a battery-backed RAID
> controller card is massively better for performance and just as good for
> redundancy and security.

The real performance problem with RAID 5 won't show up until a drive
dies and it starts rebuilding, at which point it's then WAYYYY slower,
and while it's rebuilding you don't have redundancy.  If you HAVE to
use stripes with redundancy, use RAID-6.  It's no faster when working
right, but with a single dead drive it's still ok on performance and
can rebuild at leisure since there's till redundancy in the system.
But really if you're running a db on anything other than RAID-10 you
need to reassess your priorities.

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Index Bloat - how to tell?