They are not equivalent. As I understand it, RAID 0+1 performs about the same as RAID 10 when everything is working, but degrades much less nicely in the presence of a single failed drive, and is more likely to suffer catastrophic data loss if multiple drives fail. -- Mark On Tue, 2006-05-02 at 12:40 -0600, Brendan Duddridge wrote: > Everyone here always says that RAID 5 isn't good for Postgres. We > have an Apple Xserve RAID configured with RAID 5. We chose RAID 5 > because Apple said their Xserve RAID was "optimized" for RAID 5. Not > sure if we made the right decision though. They give an option for > formatting as RAID 0+1. Is that the same as RAID 10 that everyone > talks about? Or is it the reverse? > > Thanks, > > ____________________________________________________________________ > Brendan Duddridge | CTO | 403-277-5591 x24 | brendan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > ClickSpace Interactive Inc. > Suite L100, 239 - 10th Ave. SE > Calgary, AB T2G 0V9 > > http://www.clickspace.com > > On May 2, 2006, at 11:16 AM, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 05:14:41PM +0930, Eric Lam wrote: > >> all dumpfiles total about 17Gb. It has been running for 50ish hrs > >> and up > >> to about the fourth file (5-6 ish Gb) and this is on a raid 5 server. > > > > RAID5 generally doesn't bode too well for performance; that could be > > part of the issue. > > -- > > Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 > > vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 > > > > ---------------------------(end of > > broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? > > > > http://archives.postgresql.org > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to > choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not > match
