Re: Recomended FS - Mailing list pgsql-general
From | Peter Childs |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Recomended FS |
Date | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.58.0310211112160.29396@bluedragon.homelinux.net Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Recomended FS ("Ben-Nes Michael" <miki@canaan.co.il>) |
Responses |
Re: Recomended FS
|
List | pgsql-general |
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Ben-Nes Michael wrote: > what about mirroring only ? raid 1 ? > > I always thought that raid 1 is the fastest, am I true ? > > I don't really need more then 3GB data and I have two 36GB HD. so I don't > need lvl 0 nor lvl 5 unless raid 1 is slower. Raid 1 should not be slower than raid 5. hence Raid 0 Write = Deciede which disk, Write Read = Deciede Which disk, Read Raid 1 Write = Write Disk 1, Write Dist 2 Read = Read (Don't matter which one) Raid 5 Write = Write Disk 1, Write Disk 2, Calc Check Sum, Write Disk 3 Read = Read Disk 1, Read Disk 2, Regenate Data. Peter Childs > > -------------------------- > Canaan Surfing Ltd. > Internet Service Providers > Ben-Nes Michael - Manager > Tel: 972-4-6991122 > Fax: 972-4-6990098 > http://www.canaan.net.il > -------------------------- > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Markus Wollny" <Markus.Wollny@computec.de> > To: <holger@marzen.de> > Cc: <pgsql-general@postgresql.org> > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 11:00 AM > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Recomended FS > > > > Theory vs. real life. In Theory, RAID5 is faster because less > > data have > > to be written to disk. But it's true, many RAID5 controllers > > don't have > > enough CPU power. > > I think it might not be just CPU-power of the controller. For RAID0+1 > you just have two disc-I/O per write-access: writing to the original set > and the mirror-set. For RAID5 you have three additional > disc-I/O-processes: 1. Read the original data block, 2. read the parity > block (and calculate the new parity block, which is not a disk I/O), 3. > write the updated data block and 4. write the updated parity block. Thus > recommendations by IBM for DB/2 and several Oracle-consultants state > that RAID5 is the best compromise for storage vs. transaction speed, but > if your main concern is the latter, you're always best of with RAID0+1; > RAID0+1 does indeed always and reproducably have better write > performance that RAID0+1 and read-performance is almost always also > slightly better. > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org) >
pgsql-general by date: