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

Lower Random Access Time vs RAID 0 / 1

From: "Michael Ben-Nes" <miki(at)epoch(dot)co(dot)il>
To: "PostgreSQL Performance" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Lower Random Access Time vs RAID 0 / 1
Date: 2007-03-22 09:08:02
Message-ID: f3be18fa0703220208h12ae8cf1p7c85c5b636003301@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Hello

I plan to buy a new development server and I wonder what will be the best HD
combination.

I'm aware that "best combination" also relay on DB structure and usage.
so lets assume, heavy duty large DB with mostly reads and heavy write
actions from time to time ( updates / huge transactions ).

Here are the options:

One very fast 10K RPM SATA Western Digital Raptor 150GB HD.
  Pro: very low access time and generally 30% faster regarding mainstream
HD.
  Con: Expensive.

2 mainstream 7.2K RPM SATA HD in RAID 0.
  Pro: fast transfer rate.
  Con: Access time is lowered as both HD has to sync for read / write ( true
? ).

2 mainstream 7.2K RPM SATA HD in RAID 1.
  Pro: can access parallely different files in the same time ( true ? ).
  Con: Slower at writing.

Random access benchmark:
http://www23.tomshardware.com/storage.html?modelx=33&model1=280&model2=675&chart=32


Will be happy to hear recommendations and ideas.

Thanks,
Miki

-- 
--------------------------------------------------
Michael Ben-Nes - Internet Consultant and  Director.
http://www.epoch.co.il - weaving the Net.
Cellular: 054-4848113
--------------------------------------------------

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Andreas TilleDate: 2007-03-22 10:53:00
Subject: Performance of count(*)
Previous:From: Erik JonesDate: 2007-03-21 22:07:03
Subject: Re: OT: Munin (was Re: Determining server load from client)

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