On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 12:30:16PM +0100, Arjen van der Meijden wrote:
> If you have a MegaCLI-version, I'd like to see it, if possible? That
> would definitely save us some reinventing the wheel :-)
A friend of mine just wrote
MegaCli -AdpAllInfo -a0|egrep ' (Degraded|Offline|Critical Disks
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 12:56 PM
To: Joe Uhl
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Opinions on Raid
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 07:12, Joe Uhl wrote:
> We have been running Postgres on a 2U server with 2 disks configured in
> raid 1 for the os and logs and 4 disks configu
On 28-2-2007 0:42 Geoff Tolley wrote:
[2] How do people on this list monitor their hardware raid? Thus far we
have used Dell and the only way to easily monitor disk status is to use
their openmanage application. Do other controllers offer easier means
of monitoring individual disks in a raid co
Joe Uhl wrote:
[1] What is the performance penalty of software raid over hardware raid?
Is it truly significant? We will be working with 100s of GB to 1-2 TB
of data eventually.
One thing you should appreciate about hw vs sw raid is that with the former
you can battery-back it and enable co
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 12:28, Joe Uhl wrote:
> Really appreciate all of the valuable input. The current server has the
> Perc4ei controller.
>
> The impression I am taking from the responses is that we may be okay with
> software raid, especially if raid 1 and 10 are what we intend to use.
>
> I
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 07:12, Joe Uhl wrote:
> We have been running Postgres on a 2U server with 2 disks configured in
> raid 1 for the os and logs and 4 disks configured in raid 10 for the
> data. I have since been told raid 5 would have been a better option
> given our usage of Dell equipment and
Hope you don't mind, Ron. This might be splitting hairs.
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 11:05:39AM -0500, Ron wrote:
> The real CPU overhead when using SW RAID is when using any form of SW
> RAID that does XOR operations as part of writes (RAID 5, 6, 50, ...,
> etc). At that point, you are essentially
At 08:12 AM 2/27/2007, Joe Uhl wrote:
We have been running Postgres on a 2U server with 2 disks configured in
raid 1 for the os and logs and 4 disks configured in raid 10 for the
data. I have since been told raid 5 would have been a better option
given our usage of Dell equipment and the way the
Joe Uhl wrote:
We have been running Postgres on a 2U server with 2 disks configured in
raid 1 for the os and logs and 4 disks configured in raid 10 for the
data. I have since been told raid 5 would have been a better option
given our usage of Dell equipment and the way they handle raid 10. I
ha
We have been running Postgres on a 2U server with 2 disks configured in
raid 1 for the os and logs and 4 disks configured in raid 10 for the
data. I have since been told raid 5 would have been a better option
given our usage of Dell equipment and the way they handle raid 10. I
have just a few gen
10 matches
Mail list logo
