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
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 Marlowe||Date: 2009-05-21 16:39:22|
|Subject: Re: raid10 hard disk choice|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-05-21 15:41:10|
|Subject: Re: query planner uses sequencial scan instead of index scan |