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

Re: 8x2.5" or 6x3.5" disks

From: Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing(at)tweakers(dot)net>
To: david(at)lang(dot)hm
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 10:29:23
Message-ID: 479F0003.6080003@tweakers.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
There are several suppliers who offer Seagate's 2.5" 15k rpm disks, I 
know HP, Dell are amongst those. So I was actually refering to those, 
rather than to the 10k one's.

Best regards,

Arjen

david(at)lang(dot)hm wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
>       choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
>       match
> 

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Mike SmithDate: 2008-01-29 11:43:15
Subject: Re: 8x2.5" or 6x3.5" disks
Previous:From: Matthew LunnonDate: 2008-01-29 10:12:49
Subject: Re: JDBC/Stored procedure performance issue

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