| From: | Douglas McNaught <doug(at)mcnaught(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Vivek Khera <vivek(at)khera(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "Pgsql-Performance ((E-mail))" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Arguments Pro/Contra Software Raid |
| Date: | 2006-05-09 18:05:28 |
| Message-ID: | 87mzdroyzb.fsf@suzuka.mcnaught.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-performance |
Vivek Khera <vivek(at)khera(dot)org> writes:
> On May 9, 2006, at 11:51 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>> And dollar for dollar, SCSI will NOT be faster nor have the hard
>> drive capacity that you will get with SATA.
>
> Does this hold true still under heavy concurrent-write loads? I'm
> preparing yet another big DB server and if SATA is a better option,
> I'm all (elephant) ears.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never heard of a 15kRPM SATA drive.
-Doug
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Karl O. Pinc | 2006-05-09 18:12:39 | Re: pg_restore duplicate key violations |
| Previous Message | Vivek Khera | 2006-05-09 17:57:16 | Re: Arguments Pro/Contra Software Raid |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2006-05-09 18:25:27 | Re: [PERFORM] Arguments Pro/Contra Software Raid |
| Previous Message | Vivek Khera | 2006-05-09 17:57:16 | Re: Arguments Pro/Contra Software Raid |