X-Original-To: pgsql-general-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7C179FA261; Tue, 9 May 2006 22:00:11 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 85565-03; Tue, 9 May 2006 21:59:59 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from candle.pha.pa.us (candle.pha.pa.us [70.90.9.53]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 470259F9DCD; Tue, 9 May 2006 21:59:57 -0300 (ADT) Received: (from pgman@localhost) by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.11.6) id k4A0xtK09977; Tue, 9 May 2006 20:59:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Bruce Momjian Message-Id: <200605100059.k4A0xtK09977@candle.pha.pa.us> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Arguments Pro/Contra Software Raid In-Reply-To: <4460DE97.9040001@commandprompt.com> To: "Joshua D. Drake" Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 20:59:55 -0400 (EDT) CC: Vivek Khera , "Pgsql-Performance ((E-mail))" , PostgreSQL General X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200605/405 X-Sequence-Number: 95197 Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Vivek Khera wrote: > > > > On May 9, 2006, at 11:51 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > >> Sorry that is an extremely misleading statement. SATA RAID is > >> perfectly acceptable if you have a hardware raid controller with a > >> battery backup controller. > >> > >> And dollar for dollar, SCSI will NOT be faster nor have the hard drive > >> capacity that you will get with SATA. > > > > Does this hold true still under heavy concurrent-write loads? I'm > > preparing yet another big DB server and if SATA is a better option, I'm > > all (elephant) ears. > > I didn't say better :). If you can afford, SCSI is the way to go. > However SATA with a good controller (I am fond of the LSI 150 series) > can provide some great performance. Basically, you can get away with cheaper hardware, but it usually doesn't have the reliability/performance of more expensive options. You want an in-depth comparison of how a server disk drive is internally better than a desktop drive: http://www.seagate.com/content/docs/pdf/whitepaper/D2c_More_than_Interface_ATA_vs_SCSI_042003.pdf -- Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +