Re: Filesystem vs. Postgres for images - Mailing list pgsql-general

From scott.marlowe
Subject Re: Filesystem vs. Postgres for images
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.33.0404130925320.28757-100000@css120.ihs.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Filesystem vs. Postgres for images  (Christopher Petrilli <petrilli@amber.org>)
Responses Re: Filesystem vs. Postgres for images
Re: Filesystem vs. Postgres for images
List pgsql-general
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Christopher Petrilli wrote:

> 2. Retrieval time is limited not by disk bandwidth, but by I/O seek
> performance. More spindles = more concurrent I/O in flight. Also, this
> is where SCSI takes a massive lead with tag-command-queuing.
>
> In our case, we ended up using a three-tier directory structure, so
> that we could manage the number of files per directory, and then
> because load was relatively even across the top 20 "directories", we
> split them onto 5 spindle-pairs (i.e. RAID-1).  This is a place where
> RAID-5 is your enemy. RAID-1, when implemented with read-balancing, is
> a substantial performance increase.

Please explain why RAID 5 is so bad here.  I would think that on a not
very heavily updated fs, RAID-5 would be the functional equivalent of a
RAID 0 array with one fewer disks, wouldn't it?  Or is RAID 0 also a bad
idea (other than the unreliability of it) because it only puts the data on
one spindle, unlike RAID-1 which puts it on many.

In that case >2 drive RAID 1 setups might be a huge win.  The linux kernel
certainly supports them, and I think some RAID cards do too.

Just wondering.


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "scott.marlowe"
Date:
Subject: Re: Data Encryption in PostgreSQL, and a Tutorial.
Next
From: Phil Endecott
Date:
Subject: Re: Filesystem vs. Postgres for images