| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Francisco Reyes <lists(at)stringsutils(dot)com>, Pgsql performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 10K vs 15k rpm for analytics |
| Date: | 2010-03-02 23:56:46 |
| Message-ID: | dcc563d11003021556l295c10ebm9deadfbd8b984888@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> If you only have 2 or 3 connections, I can't imagine that the improved seek
> times of the 15K drives will be a major driving factor. As already
> suggested, 10K drives tend to be larger and can be extremely fast on
> sequential workloads, particularly if you short-stroke them and stick to
> putting the important stuff on the fast part of the disk.
The thing I like most about short stroking 7200RPM 1 to 2 TB drives is
that you get great performance on one hand, and a ton of left over
storage for backups and stuff. And honestly, you can't have enough
extra storage laying about when working on databases.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Smith | 2010-03-02 23:57:19 | Re: 10K vs 15k rpm for analytics |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2010-03-02 23:50:02 | Re: 10K vs 15k rpm for analytics |