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

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

From: Craig James <craig_james(at)emolecules(dot)com>
To: Mike Smith <mike(dot)smith(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 8x2.5" or 6x3.5" disks
Date: 2008-01-29 15:06:23
Message-ID: 479F40EF.6070802@emolecules.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Mike Smith wrote:
> I’ve seen a few performance posts on using different hardware 
> technologies to gain improvements. Most of those comments are on raid, 
>  interface and rotation speed.   One area that doesn’t seem to have 
>  been mentioned  is to  run your disks empty.
> ...
> On the outside of the disk you get a lot more data per seek than on the 
> inside. Double whammy you get it faster.
> 
> Performance  can vary more than  100% between the outer and inner tracks 
> of the disk.   So running a slower disk twice as big may give you more 
> benefit than running a small capacity 15K disk full.  The slower disks 
> are also generally more reliable and mostly much cheaper.
> ...
> This is not very green as you need to buy more disks for the same amount 
> of data and its liable to upset your purchasing department who won’t 
> understand why you don’t want to fill your disks up.

So presumably the empty-disk effect could also be achieved by partitioning, say 25% of the drive for the database, and 75% empty partition.  But in fact, you could use that "low performance 75%" for rarely-used or static data, such as the output from pg_dump, that is written during non-peak times.

Pretty cool.

Craig

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: MatthewDate: 2008-01-29 15:09:03
Subject: Re: RAID arrays and performance
Previous:From: Scott MarloweDate: 2008-01-29 15:00:22
Subject: Re: 8x2.5" or 6x3.5" disks

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