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

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

From: "Mike Smith" <mike(dot)smith(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Craig James" <craig_james(at)emolecules(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 8x2.5" or 6x3.5" disks
Date: 2008-01-29 18:40:25
Message-ID: 51494DB187D98F4C88DBEBF1F5F6D4230257D9A6@edb06.mail01.enterprisedb.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
[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] 
 
Larry Ellison financed a  company called Pillar Data Systems which was founded on the principle that you can tier the disk according to the value and performance requirements of the data. They planned to put  the most valuable in performance terms on the outside of  SATA disks  and use the empty space in the middle for  slower stuff..
(This is not an advert. I like the idea but I dont know if it works well and I dont have anything to do with Pillar  other than EnterpriseDB compete against Larry's other little company).   
Probably the way to go is flash drives for primary performance data . EMC and others have announced   Enterprise Flash Drives  (they claim 30 times performance of 15K disks  although at 30 times the cost of standard disk today ). Flash should also have pretty much consistent high performance across the whole capacity.
Within a couple of years EFD  should be affordable for mainstream use.

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-01-29 21:59:44
Subject: Re: planner chooses unoptimal plan on joins with complex key
Previous:From: Scott MarloweDate: 2008-01-29 18:36:46
Subject: Re: analyze

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