| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: raid10 hard disk choice |
| Date: | 2009-05-21 21:41:05 |
| Message-ID: | dcc563d10905211441j57f6fa5es6694b3c192dee446@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org> wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 May 2009, Linos wrote:
>>>
>>> i have to buy a new server and in the budget i have (small) i have
>>> to select one of this two options:
>>>
>>> -4 sas 146gb 15k rpm raid10.
>>> -8 sas 146gb 10k rpm raid10.
>>
>> It depends what you are doing. I think in most situations, the second option
>> is better, but there may be a few situations where the reverse is true.
>
> One possible case of this - I believe that 15K drives will allow you
> to commit ~250 times per second (15K/60) vs. ~166 times per second
> (10K/60). If you have a lot of small write transactions, this might
> be an issue.
But in a RAID-10 you aggreate pairs like RAID-0, so you could write
250(n/2) times per second on 15k where n=4 and 166(n/2) for 10k drives
where n=8. So 500 versus 664... ? Or am I getting it wrong.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Carey | 2009-05-21 22:04:40 | Re: raid10 hard disk choice |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-05-21 20:29:01 | Re: raid10 hard disk choice |