From: | Craig James <craig_james(at)emolecules(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: raid10 hard disk choice |
Date: | 2009-05-21 17:10:31 |
Message-ID: | 4A158B07.2080702@emolecules.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Matthew Wakeling wrote:
> On Thu, 21 May 2009, Linos wrote:
>> i have to buy a new server and in the budget i have (small) i have
>> to select one of this two options:
>>
>> -4 sas 146gb 15k rpm raid10.
>> -8 sas 146gb 10k rpm raid10.
>
> It depends what you are doing. I think in most situations, the second
> option is better, but there may be a few situations where the reverse is
> true.
>
> Basically, the first option will only be faster if you are doing lots of
> seeking (small requests) in a single thread. As soon as you go
> multi-threaded or are looking at sequential scans, you're better off
> with more discs.
Since you have to share the disks with a file server, which might be heavily used, the 8-disk array will probably be better even if you're doing lots of seeking in a single thread.
Craig
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-05-21 20:29:01 | Re: raid10 hard disk choice |
Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2009-05-21 16:39:22 | Re: raid10 hard disk choice |