Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10 - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From david@lang.hm
Subject Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.64.0712261504310.11785@asgard.lang.hm
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10  (Mark Mielke <mark@mark.mielke.cc>)
Responses Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10
List pgsql-performance
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007, Mark Mielke wrote:

> Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> seek/read/calculate/seek/write since the drive moves on after the
>>> read), when you read you must read _all_ drives in the set to check
>>> the data integrity.
>>>
>> I don't know of any RAID implementation that performs consistency
>> checking on each read operation. 8-(
>>
>
> Dave had too much egg nog... :-)
>
> Yep - checking consistency on read would eliminate the performance benefits
> of RAID under any redundant configuration.

except for raid0, raid is primarily a reliability benifit, any performance
benifit is incidental, not the primary purpose.

that said, I have heard of raid1 setups where it only reads off of one of
the drives, but I have not heard of higher raid levels doing so.

David Lang

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Guillaume Smet"
Date:
Subject: Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances
Next
From: Mark Mielke
Date:
Subject: Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10