Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.251])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EAC4633F91
	for <pgsql-admin-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 28 Apr 2010 17:29:35 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.251]) (amavisd-maia,
	port 10024) with ESMTP id 19973-05 for
	<pgsql-admin-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 28 Apr 2010 20:29:27 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from hermes.vectorsf.com (firewall.vectorsf.com [62.82.80.62])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF12B633F9B
	for <pgsql-admin@postgresql.org>; Wed, 28 Apr 2010 17:29:27 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by hermes.vectorsf.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38AA52480004;
	Wed, 28 Apr 2010 22:27:39 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at hermes.vectorsf.com
Received: from hermes.vectorsf.com ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (hermes.vectorsf.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id n958gobwJ4lV; Wed, 28 Apr 2010 22:27:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.1.24] (unknown [87.223.72.180])
	(Authenticated sender: imartinez)
	by hermes.vectorsf.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E89502480001;
	Wed, 28 Apr 2010 22:27:34 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: more 10K disks or less 15K disks
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?I=F1igo?= Martinez Lasala <imartinez@vectorsf.com>
To: Anj Adu <fotographs@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <i2pf2fd819a1004281127sf91d988cua1d95d13d09dae09@mail.gmail.com>
References: <i2pf2fd819a1004281127sf91d988cua1d95d13d09dae09@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-hGxbA+2u+Z0joh0AE+G/"
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 22:29:14 +0200
Message-ID: <1272486554.16259.73.camel@deimos>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.909 tagged_above=-10 required=5
	tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 201004/340
X-Sequence-Number: 34434


--=-hGxbA+2u+Z0joh0AE+G/
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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@gmail.com>
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.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)

or

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

Sriram




--=-hGxbA+2u+Z0joh0AE+G/
Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
  <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
  <META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.28.3">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
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%).<BR>
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. <BR>
Do you have benchmarks about these hard disk models ?<BR>
<BR>
How about using SSD? ;-)<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
<B>From</B>: Anj Adu &lt;<A HREF="mailto:Anj%20Adu%20%3cfotographs@gmail.com%3e">fotographs@gmail.com</A>&gt;<BR>
<B>To</B>: <A HREF="mailto:pgsql-admin@postgresql.org">pgsql-admin@postgresql.org</A><BR>
<B>Subject</B>: [ADMIN] more 10K disks or less 15K disks<BR>
<B>Date</B>: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 11:27:26 -0700<BR>
<BR>
<PRE>
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)

or

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

Sriram

</PRE>
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>

--=-hGxbA+2u+Z0joh0AE+G/--