| From: | "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Lionel <lionel(at)art-informatique(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Hardware HD choice... |
| Date: | 2008-10-23 17:16:44 |
| Message-ID: | dcc563d10810231016x2b66b7b8i5f6e7d2fb0ea0b6f@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:38 AM, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> Any other better option that I could ask for ?
>
> Yes, more drives. 4 drives in a RAID10 is a good start. If you could
> get 8 or 12 in one that's even better.
>
Note that for transactional databases SAS drives are usually
noticeably better, but for reporting databases, SATA drives are
generally fine, with 70-80% the sustained transfer rate at less than
half the cost per megabyte. I'd recommend 8 SATA drives over 4 SAS
drives for a reporting database. You'll spend about the same on twice
the number of drives but you'll get much more storage, which is often
useful when you need to work with large datasets.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Collin Kidder | 2008-10-23 17:25:47 | Re: Annoying Reply-To |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-10-23 17:15:37 | Re: Annoying Reply-To |