On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 11:01 -0400, justin wrote: > Ow Mun Heng wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > If you're looking at read only / read > > > mostly, then RAID5 or 6 might be a better choice than RAID-10. But > > > RAID 10 is my default choice unless testing shows RAID-5/6 can beat > > > it. > > > > > > > I'm loading my slave server with RAID-0 based on 3 IDE 7200 Drives. > > Is this worst off than a RAID 5 implementation? > > > > > > > I see no problem using Raid-0 on a purely read only database where > there is a copy of the data somewhere else. RAID 0 gives performance. > If one of the 3 drives dies it takes the server down and lost of data > will happen. The idea behind RAID 1/5/6/10 is if a drive does fail > the system can keep going. Giving you time to shut down and replace > the bad disk or if you have hot swappable just pull and replace.
I'm looking for purely read-only performance and since I didn't have the bandwidth to do extensive testing, I didn't know whether a RAID1 or a Raid 0 will do the better job. In the end, I decided to go with RAID 0 and now, I'm thinking if RAID1 will do a better job. > -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
