Re: SCSI vs SATA

From: "jason(at)ohloh(dot)net" <jason(at)ohloh(dot)net>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SCSI vs SATA
Date: 2007-04-04 23:42:21
Message-ID: 649E6F5F-13D0-4D2F-A842-722320FF8F3C@ohloh.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

In a perhaps fitting compromise, I have decide to go with a hybrid
solution:

8*73GB 15k SAS drives hooked up to Adaptec 4800SAS
PLUS
6*150GB SATA II drives hooked up to mobo (for now)

All wrapped in a 16bay 3U server. My reasoning is that the extra SATA
drives are practically free compared to the rest of the system (since
the mobo has 6 onboard connectors). I plan on putting the pg_xlog &
operating system on the sata drives and the tables/indices on the SAS
drives, although I might not use the sata drives for the xlog if
they dont pan out perf-wise. I plan on getting the battery backed
module for the adaptec (72 hours of charge time).

Thanks to everyone for the valuable input. I hope i can do you all
proud with the setup and postgres.conf optimizations.

-jay

On Apr 4, 2007, at 1:48 PM, Carlos Moreno wrote:

>
>> Problem is :), you can purchase SATA Enterprise Drives.
>
> Problem???? I would have thought that was a good thing!!! ;-)
>
> Carlos
> --
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message James Mansion 2007-04-05 05:25:05 Re: SCSI vs SATA
Previous Message Carlos Moreno 2007-04-04 20:48:05 Re: SCSI vs SATA