| From: | david(at)lang(dot)hm |
|---|---|
| To: | Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing(at)tweakers(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Christian Nicolaisen <blackbrrd(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 8x2.5" or 6x3.5" disks |
| Date: | 2008-01-29 08:32:25 |
| Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.1.00.0801290030390.16707@asgard.lang.hm |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Arjen van der Meijden wrote:
> On 28-1-2008 20:25 Christian Nicolaisen wrote:
>> So, my question is: should I go for the 2.5" disk setup or 3.5" disk setup,
>> and does the raid setup in either case look correct?
>
> Afaik they are about equal in speed. With the smaller ones being a bit faster
> in random access and the larger ones a bit faster for sequential
> reads/writes.
I missed the initial post in this thread, but I haven't seen any 15K rpm
2.5" drives, so if you compare 10K rpm 2.5" drives with 15K rpm 3.5"
drives you will see differences (depending on your workload and controller
cache)
David Lang
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthew Lunnon | 2008-01-29 10:12:49 | Re: JDBC/Stored procedure performance issue |
| Previous Message | Claus Guttesen | 2008-01-29 08:06:49 | Re: 8x2.5" or 6x3.5" disks |