Re: H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on faster HDDs
Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah@trade-india.com>
From: "Rajesh Kumar Mallah." <mallah@trade-india.com>
To: "scott.marlowe" <scott.marlowe@ihs.com>
Cc: <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Date: 2002-11-21T17:58:43Z
Lists: pgsql-performance
OK now i am reading Momjian's "PostgreSQL Hardware Performance Tuning" once again ;-) mallah. On Thursday 21 November 2002 23:02, scott.marlowe wrote: > On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Rajesh Kumar Mallah. wrote: > > Hi folks, > > > > I have two options: > > 3*18 GB 10,000 RPM Ultra160 Dual Channel SCSI controller + H/W Raid 5 > > and > > 2*36 GB 15,000 RPM Ultra320 Dual Channel SCSI and no RAID > > > > Does anyone opinions *performance wise* the pros and cons of above > > two options. > > > > please take in consideration in latter case its higher RPM and better > > SCSI interface. > > Does the OS you're running on support software RAID? If so the dual 36 > gigs in a RAID0 software would be fastest, and in a RAID1 would still be > pretty fast plus they would be redundant. > > Depending on your queries, there may not be a lot of difference between > running the 3*18 hw RAID or the 2*36 setup, especially if most of your > data can fit into memory on the server. > > Generally, the 2*36 should be faster for writing, and the 3*18 should be > about even for reads, maybe a little faster. -- Rajesh Kumar Mallah, Project Manager (Development) Infocom Network Limited, New Delhi phone: +91(11)6152172 (221) (L) ,9811255597 (M) Visit http://www.trade-india.com , India's Leading B2B eMarketplace.