First of all, thank you so much for your valuable time. It probably does, though we have a requirement of having available at least twice the expected database size, and 50% of disk space overhead sounds like too much for us to take in a replicated SAN environment and a PostgreSQL master/slave - streaming replication setup.
our options regarding disks availability at the moment are: a 3 disks array dedicated for PostgreSQL in any RAID configuration we'd like OR a 10 disks array shared with 14 virtual machines running the middleware layer and the application infrastructure in a RAID 5 configuration again, I do really appreciate your kindly help. 2013/8/28 Scott Marlowe <scott.marl...@gmail.com> > Does your controller support odd number RAID-10 i.e. RAID 1E? If so > then 3 disks in RAID-1E. Or better 10 disks in 1E > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Rene Romero Benavides > <rene.romer...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks for your attention. > > What would you choose for a postgresql installation: 3 disks configured > with > > RAID 0 (in a self replicating SAN) over 10 disks configured with RAID 5 > > (also in a self replicating SAN) , we have space constraints that > prohibit > > us from choosing RAID 1+0. > > I've been persuaded to choose RAID 5, because writes and parity > computation > > will be spread over 10 disks compensating write overhead providing a > better > > level of data security. > > > > Do you think it was a good decision? Any comment will be appreciated. > Have a > > good day. > > > > -- > > El genio es 1% inspiración y 99% transpiración. > > Thomas Alva Edison > > http://pglearn.blogspot.mx/ > > > > > > -- > To understand recursion, one must first understand recursion. > -- El genio es 1% inspiración y 99% transpiración. Thomas Alva Edison http://pglearn.blogspot.mx/
