Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 13:11:48 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Performance query about large tables, lots of concurrent access
Message-ID: <20070621171148.GC5500@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
References: <4676DD57.7070304@metacarta.com>
	<20070620175300.GN30369@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<46796A08.8080601@metacarta.com>
	<200706201425.28557.sthomas@leapfrogonline.com>
	<46799C45.7080805@metacarta.com>
	<4679AE24.9070005@g2switchworks.com>
	<4679B6C7.3080207@metacarta.com> <467A9CE5.508@g2switchworks.com>
	<467AA77D.3030204@metacarta.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <467AA77D.3030204@metacarta.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i

On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 12:29:49PM -0400, Karl Wright wrote:
> I checked the disk picture - this is a RAID disk array with 6 drives, 
> with a bit more than 1Tbyte total storage.  15,000 RPM.  It would be 
> hard to get more/faster disk than that.

What kind of RAID?  It's _easy_ to get faster disk that 6 drives in
RAID5, even if they're 15,000 RPM.  The rotation speed is the least
of your problems in many RAID implementations.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan  | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
"The year's penultimate month" is not in truth a good way of saying
November.
		--H.W. Fowler