On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 8:43 AM, John R Pierce<pie...@hogranch.com> wrote: > nabble.30.miller_2...@spamgourmet.com wrote: >> >> The database server is a quad core machine, so it sounds as though >> software RAID should work fine for the present setup. However, it >> sounds as though I should put some money into a hardware RAID >> controller if the database becomes more active. I had assumed RAID-5 >> would be fine, but please let me know if there is another RAID level >> more appropriate for this implementation. Thanks for the valuable >> insight! >> > > raid-5 performs very poorly on random small block writes, which is hte > majority of what databases do. raid10 is the preferred raid for databases. > > > > btw: re earlier discussion of raid controllers vs software... I'm surprised > nooone mentioned that a 'real' raid controller with battery backed writeback > cache can hugely speed up committed 8kbyte block random writes, which are > quite often the big bottleneck in a transactional database.
Given that the OP's usage pattern was bulk imports and reporting queries it didn't seem very important. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
