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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
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

Browse pgsql-performance by date

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