Francisco Reyes wrote:
That is certainly something worth considering... Still I wonder if 2
more spindles will help enough to justify going to RAID 5. My
understanding is that RAID10 has simpler computations requirements which
is partly what makes it better for lots of random read/write.
yo
Francisco Reyes wrote:
Michael Stone writes:
I still don't follow that. Why would the RAID level matter? IOW, are
you actually wanting 2 spares, or are you just stick with that because
you need a factor of two disks for your mirrors?
RAID 10 needs pairs.. so we can either have no spares or 2
Gábriel Ákos writes:
RAID 10 needs pairs.. so we can either have no spares or 2 spares.
hm, interesting. I have recently set up a HP machine with smartarray 6i
controller, and it is able to handle 4 disks in raid10 plus 1 as spare.
:-)
Ok so let me be a bit more clear...
We have 6 disks in
Gábriel Ákos writes:
you are right. raid5 is definitely not suitable for database activities.
That is not entirely true. :-)
Right now the new server is not ready and the ONLY place I could put the DB
for Bacula was a machine with RAID 5. So far it is holding fine. HOWEVER...
only one bacula
Tom Lane writes:
Also, increasing checkpoint_segments and possibly wal_buffers helps a
lot for write-intensive loads.
Following up on those two recomendations from Tom.
Tom mentioned in a different message that if the inserst are small that
increasing wal_buffers would not help.
How about c
