From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing(at)tweakers(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Hardware recommendations |
Date: | 2010-12-10 18:08:01 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTimAQ5CUVdL0VqSpKwVe7a-keYQoSius=yGajS6c@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Arjen van der Meijden
<acmmailing(at)tweakers(dot)net> wrote:
>
> On 10-12-2010 18:57 Arjen van der Meijden wrote:
>>
>> Have a look here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/2829/21
>> The sequential writes-graphs consistently put several SSD's at twice the
>> performance of the VelociRaptor 300GB 10k rpm disk and that's a test
>> from over a year old, current SSD's have increased in performance,
>> whereas I'm not so sure there was much improvement in platter based
>> disks lately?
>
> Here's a more recent test:
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/4020/ocz-vertex-plus-preview-introducing-the-indilinx-martini/3
>
> That shows several consumer grade SSD's and a 600GB VelociRaptor, its 200+
> vs 140MB/sec. I'm not sure how recent 15k rpm sas disks would do, nor do I
> know how recent server grade SSD's would behave. But if we assume similar
> gains for both, its still in favor of SSD's :-)
The latest Seagate Cheetahs (15k.7) can do 122 to 204 depending on
what part of the drive you're writing to.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andy | 2010-12-10 19:27:28 | Re: Hardware recommendations |
Previous Message | Arjen van der Meijden | 2010-12-10 18:05:43 | Re: Hardware recommendations |