Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: raid10 hard disk choice

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Linos <info(at)linos(dot)es>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: raid10 hard disk choice
Date: 2009-05-21 15:58:12
Message-ID: 1242921492.16418.2.camel@jd-laptop.pragmaticzealot.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 10:25 -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Linos <info(at)linos(dot)es> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >        i have to buy a new server and in the budget i have (small) i have to
> > select one of this two options:
> >
> > -4 sas 146gb 15k rpm raid10.
> > -8 sas 146gb 10k rpm raid10.
> >
> > The server would not be only dedicated to postgresql but to be a file
> > server, the rest of options like plenty of ram and battery backed cache raid
> > card are done but this two different hard disk configuration have the same
> > price and i am not sure what it is better.
> >
> > If the best option it is different for postgresql that for a file server i
> > would like to know too, thanks.
> 
> I would say go with the 10k drives.  more space, flexibility (you can
> dedicate a volume to WAL), and more total performance on paper.  I
> would also, if you can afford it and they fit, get two small sata
> drives, mount raid 1 and put the o/s on those.

+1 on that.

Joshua D. Drake


> 
> merlin
> 
-- 
PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdrake(at)jabber(dot)postgresql(dot)org
   Consulting, Development, Support, Training
   503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/
   The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997


In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Scott MarloweDate: 2009-05-21 16:39:22
Subject: Re: raid10 hard disk choice
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-05-21 15:41:10
Subject: Re: query planner uses sequencial scan instead of index scan

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group