On 8/24/06, Bucky Jordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Here's benchmarks of RAID5x4 vs RAID10x4 on a Dell Perc5/I with 300 GB
10k RPM SAS drives. I know these are bonnie 1.9 instead of the older
version, but maybe it might still make for useful analysis of RAID5 vs.
RAID10.
-- RAID5x4
i dont
On 8/24/06, Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 13:57, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On 8/24/06, Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 09:21 -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> > > On 8/22/06, Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2006-08-
On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 15:03, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On 8/24/06, Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 13:57, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> > > On 8/24/06, Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 09:21 -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> > > > > On 8/22
cky
-Original Message-
From: Scott Marlowe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 3:38 PM
To: Merlin Moncure
Cc: Jeff Davis; Bucky Jordan; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] PowerEdge 2950 questions
On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 13:57, Merlin Moncure wro
On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 13:57, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On 8/24/06, Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 09:21 -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> > > On 8/22/06, Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 17:56 -0400, Bucky Jordan wrote:
> > > it's not t
> it's worse than that. if you need to read something that is not in
> the o/s cache, all the disks except for one need to be sent to a
> physical location in order to get the data. Thats the basic rule with
> striping: it optimizes for sequential i/o in expense of random i/o.
> There are some op
I am looking at setting up two general-purpose database servers,
replicated with Slony. Each server I'm looking at has the following
specs:
Dell PowerEdge 2950
- 2 x Dual Core Intel(r) Xeon(r) 5130, 4MB Cache, 2.00GHz, 1333MHZ FSB
- 4GB RAM
- PERC 5/i, x6 Backplane, Integrated Controller Card (25
On 8/24/06, Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 09:21 -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On 8/22/06, Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 17:56 -0400, Bucky Jordan wrote:
> it's not the parity, it's the seeking. Raid 5 gives you great
> sequential i
On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 09:21 -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On 8/22/06, Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 17:56 -0400, Bucky Jordan wrote:
> > Very interesting. I always hear that people avoid RAID 5 on database
> > servers, but I suppose it always depends. Is the parit
On 8/22/06, Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 17:56 -0400, Bucky Jordan wrote:
Very interesting. I always hear that people avoid RAID 5 on database
servers, but I suppose it always depends. Is the parity calculation
something that may increase commit latency vs. a RAID 1
On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 17:56 -0400, Bucky Jordan wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> My experience with the 2950 seemed to indicate that RAID10x6 disks did
> not perform as well as RAID5x6. I believe I posted some numbers to
> illustrate this in the post you mentioned.
>
Very interesting. I always hear that p
Bucky
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Davis
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 5:34 PM
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: [PERFORM] PowerEdge 2950 questions
This question is related to the thread:
http://archives.postgres
This question is related to the thread:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2006-08/msg00152.php
but I had some questions.
I am looking at setting up two general-purpose database servers,
replicated with Slony. Each server I'm looking at has the following
specs:
Dell PowerEdge 2950
-
13 matches
Mail list logo
