Me, I'd *never) allow RAID-5 for data I cared abut.
Among other references, see <http://www.miracleas.com/BAARF/RAID5_versus_RAID10.txt>
(sorry for top-posting -- challenged reader and no other content to add)
Greg Williamson
Senior DBA
DigitalGlobe
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information and must be protected in accordance with those provisions. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
(My corporate masters made me say this.)
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org on behalf of Mario Weilguni
Sent: Wed 12/10/2008 4:29 AM
To: Aidan Van Dyk
Cc: Joshua D. Drake; Scott Marlowe; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Experience with HP Smart Array P400 and SATA drives?
Aidan Van Dyk schrieb:
> * Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> [081209 11:01]:
>
>
>> Yes the SmartArray series is quite common and actually know to perform
>> reasonably well, in RAID 10. You still appear to be trying RAID 5.
>>
>
> *boggle*
>
> Are people *still* using raid5?
>
> /me gives up!
>
>
Why not? I know it's not performing as good as RAID-10, but it does not
waste 50% diskspace. RAID-6 is no option, because the performance is
even worse. And, on another system with RAID-5 + spare and SAS drives,
the same controller is working very well.
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance