...and on Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 03:44:44PM -0500, Mitch Pirtle used the keyboard:
>
> You are right, I now remember that setup was originally called "RAID
> 10 plus 1", and I believe is was an incorrect statement from an
> overzealous salesman ;-)
>
Just an afterthought - that could well be the unf
You are right, I now remember that setup was originally called "RAID
10 plus 1", and I believe is was an incorrect statement from an
overzealous salesman ;-)
Thanks for the clarification!
- Mitch
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 15:19:04 -0500, Madison Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Madison Kelly wrote:
Madison Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Without it, specially in a failure state, the performance can collapse as
> the CPU performs all that extra math.
It's really not the math that makes raid 5 hurt. It's that in order to
calculate the checksum block the raid controller needs to read in t
Madison Kelly wrote:
Nope, Raid 10 (one zero) is a mirror is stripes, no parity. with r10
Woops, that should be "mirror of stripes".
By the way, what you are thinking of is possible, it would be 51 (five
one; a raid 5 built on mirrors) or 15 (a mirror of raid 5 arrays).
Always be careful, 10 a
Mitch Pirtle wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:23:13 -0800, Joshua D. Drake
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
RAID 10 will typically always outperform RAID 5 with the same HD config.
Isn't RAID10 just RAID5 mirrored? How does that speed up performance?
Or am I missing something?
-- Mitch
Hi Mitch,
Nope,
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:23:13 -0800, Joshua D. Drake
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> RAID 10 will typically always outperform RAID 5 with the same HD config.
Isn't RAID10 just RAID5 mirrored? How does that speed up performance?
Or am I missing something?
-- Mitch
---(end
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
An Opteron, properly tuned with PostgreSQL will always beat a Xeon
in terms of raw cpu.
RAID 10 will typically always outperform RAID 5 with the same HD config.
Fibre channel in general will always beat a normal (especially an LSI)
raid.
Dell's suck for PostgreSQL.
Does any
However, I keep getting conflicting advice. My choices are along
these lines:
Dual Xeon 64bit with built-in 6-disk RAID10 or RAID5 (LSI RAID card)
Dual Opteron 64bit with built-in 6-disk RAID10 or RAID5 (LSI RAID card)
Dual Opteron 64bit with external RAID via fibre channel (eg, nstor)
An Opteron
Vivek,
> Dual Xeon 64bit with built-in 6-disk RAID10 or RAID5 (LSI RAID card)
> Dual Opteron 64bit with built-in 6-disk RAID10 or RAID5 (LSI RAID card)
> Dual Opteron 64bit with external RAID via fibre channel (eg, nstor)
Opteron over Xeon, no question.Not only are the Opterons
real-world-fa
> "BS" == Bo Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BS> The servers listed above are the dell 2650's which have perc 3
BS> controllers. I have seen on this list where they are know for not
BS> performing well. So any suggestions for an attached scsi device would
BS> be greatly appreciated. Als
Bo,
> 2 - 2.4 Ghz Xeon processors
> 4GB ram
> 4 36gb 1rpm scsi drives configured for raid 10
Hopefully you've turned OFF hyperthreading?
> gains can I expect on average from swapping from 4 disk raid 10 to 14 disk
> raid 10? Could I expect to see 40 - 50% better throughput.
This is so depe
We currently are utilizing postgresql on 2 servers with the following
configuration:
2 - 2.4 Ghz Xeon processors
4GB ram
4 36gb 1rpm scsi drives configured for raid 10
We started out with one server and as we became IO bound we added the
second. We are currently considering purchasing anoth
12 matches
Mail list logo
