Thank you all for the comments
We have not benchmarked the new hardware yet..however..we do have
existing hardware that deals with very high volumes and handle pretty
well (Dell 2950 Intel 5430 8-cores with 6x450G 15K disks and 32G RAM -
Perc 6iRaid controllers) with minimal IO wait . there are ususally
about10-15 threads running at peak time with an average of 4-10
We are looking at high density boxes due to increasing storage requirements.
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Iñigo Martinez Lasala
> Supposing a 50% performance increase disk-by-disk with 15.000rpm vs
> 10.000rpm you would get better performance (100%) by doubling number of
> disks versus using 15K rpm disk (50%).
> However, you have to check other parameters, for example, if your RAID
> controller can deal with such a high bandwidth or the disk cache size.
> Do you have benchmarks about these hard disk models ?
> How about using SSD? ;-)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anj Adu <fotographs(at)gmail(dot)com>
> To: pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: [ADMIN] more 10K disks or less 15K disks
> Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 11:27:26 -0700
> I am faced with a hardware choice for a postgres data warehouse
> (extremely high volume inserts..over 200 million records a day) with a
> total storage of either
> 12 x 600G disks (15K) (the new Dell Poweredge C server)
> 24 x 600G (10K disks)
> ALL direct attached storage.
> I am leaning toward the 24 disks as I expect the higher number of
> disks to provide overall better performance under high loads
> Does anyone have any experience with a mixed 10K / 15K DAS storage
> that you can share.
> Thank you
In response to
pgsql-admin by date
|Next:||From: Scott Marlowe||Date: 2010-04-28 22:12:51|
|Subject: Re: more 10K disks or less 15K disks|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-04-28 20:47:04|
|Subject: Re: Error in PostgreSQL log |