Thanks for your answer. But how performance between raid5 and one disk. Please help me. Thanks in advance
Tuan Hoang Anh On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Scott Marlowe <scott.marl...@gmail.com>wrote: > On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott.marl...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 8:36 PM, tuanhoanganh <hatua...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I have IBM x3560 with 2G RAM - RAID 5 3 disk - PostgreSQL 9.0.6 64bit on > >> Windows 2003 64bit > >> I had read some tuning guide, it recomment not use RAID 5. So Raid 5 is > >> bestter than 3 disk independent or not. > >> > >> Here is my pgbench -h %HOST% -p 5433 -U postgres -c 10 -T 1800 -s 10 > >> pgbench > >> > >> pgbench -h 127.0.0.1 -p 5433 -U postgres -c 10 -T 1800 -s 10 pgbench > >> Scale option ignored, using pgbench_branches table count = 10 > >> starting vacuum...end. > >> transaction type: TPC-B (sort of) > >> scaling factor: 10 > >> query mode: simple > >> number of clients: 10 > >> number of threads: 1 > >> duration: 1800 s > >> number of transactions actually processed: 775366 > >> tps = 430.736191 (including connections establishing) > >> tps = 430.780400 (excluding connections establishing) > > > > RAID 5 is aweful. Look up RAID 1E for 3 disks: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_RAID_levels#RAID_1E > > If Windows doesn't support RAID 1E then setup a mirror set and use the > third drive as a hot spare. Still faster than RAID-5. >
