Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 01:06:48 +0200 From: Brad Knowles <brad@stop.mail-abuse.org> To: francisco@natserv.net Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Disk 100% busy Message-ID: <p06200764bf90479952cc@[10.0.1.210]> In-Reply-To: <20051103143332.B60864@zoraida.natserv.net> References: <0E972CEE334BFE4291CD07E056C76ED807738005@bragi.housing.ufl.edu> <p06200716bf78aa876114@[10.0.1.210]> <20051103133248.Y60367@zoraida.natserv.net> <436A5B7D.6090408@mac.com> <20051103143332.B60864@zoraida.natserv.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 2:35 PM -0500 2005-11-03, Francisco Reyes wrote:
>> If you're using maildir, that is one of the situations which works
>> pretty well with RAID-5, although RAID-10 is also (always? :-) a good
>> choice.
>
> How about for database? In particular postgresql.
> How bad would RAID 5 be for it?
RAID-5 is usually about the worst case for most database
applications, since you have to read and write entire blocks across
all disks just to change a single bit. You have to wait for all
disks to read or write their respective data, before you can return.
Some RAID arrays will have intelligent controllers that allow you to
cache writes and return before the data is actually written, but then
intelligent controllers can be used with all RAID types.
The only thing that would be worse would be RAID-3, where you'd
have a hot parity disk, whereas RAID-5 spreads the parity bits around
the array of disks.
--
Brad Knowles, <brad@stop.mail-abuse.org>
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania
Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755
SAGE member since 1995. See <http://www.sage.org/>; for more info.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p06200764bf90479952cc>