Of course these numbers are not true as soon as you exceed the stripe
size for a read operation, which is often only 128k. Typically a
stripe of mirrors will not read from seperate halves of the mirrors
either, so RAID 10 is only N/2 best case in my experience, Raid 0+1 is
a mirror of stripes and
Hi,
At 18:00 18/06/2005, PFC wrote:
I don't know what I'm talking about, but wouldn't mirorring be
faster
than striping for random reads like you often get on a database ? (ie. the
reads can be dispatched to any disk) ? (or course, not for writes, but if
you won't use fsync, random writ
I do not know what clustering would do for you. But striping will
provide a
high level of assurance that each of your hard drives will process
equivalent
amounts of IO operations.
I don't know what I'm talking about, but wouldn't mirorring be faster
than striping for random reads like
If you truly do not care about data protection -- either from drive loss or from
sudden power failure, or anything else -- and just want to get the fastest
possible performance, then do RAID 0 (striping). It may be faster to do that
with software RAID on the host than with a special RAID controlle
On Jun 17, 2005, at 3:34 PM, Yves Vindevogel wrote:We are looking to build a new machine for a big PG database. We were wondering if a machine with 5 scsi-disks would perform better if we use a hardware raid 5 controller or if we would go for the clustering in PG. If we cluster in PG, do we have re
