From: Alex Turner <armtuk@gmail.com>
To: Dave Held <dave.held@arrayservicesgrp.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Intel SRCS16 SATA raid?
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:43:18 -0400
Message-ID: <33c6269f05041415435ed69ca5@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <49E94D0CFCD4DB43AFBA928DDD20C8F9026184AF@asg002.asg.local>
References: <49E94D0CFCD4DB43AFBA928DDD20C8F9026184AF@asg002.asg.local>
Just to clarify these are tests from http://www.storagereview.com, not
my own. I guess they couldn't get number for those parts. I think
everyone understands that a 0ms seek time impossible, and indicates a
missing data point.
Thanks,
Alex Turner
netEconomist
On 4/14/05, Dave Held <dave.held@arrayservicesgrp.com> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alex Turner [mailto:armtuk@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 12:14 PM
> > To: Richard_D_Levine@raytheon.com
> > Cc: Greg Stark; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org;
> > pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org
> > Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Intel SRCS16 SATA raid?
> >
> >
> > I have put together a little head to head performance of a 15k SCSI,
> > 10k SCSI 10K SATA w/TCQ, 10K SATA wo/TCQ and 7.2K SATA drive
> > comparison at storage review
> >
> > http://www.storagereview.com/php/benchmark/compare_rtg_2001.ph
> > p?typeID=10&testbedID=3&osID=4&raidconfigID=1&numDrives=1&devI
> > D_0=232&devID_1=40&devID_2=259&devID_3=267&devID_4=261&devID_5
> > =248&devCnt=6
> >
> > It does illustrate some of the weaknesses of SATA drives, but all in
> > all the Raptor drives put on a good show.
> > [...]
>
> I think it's a little misleading that your tests show 0ms seek times
> for some of the write tests. The environmental test also selects a
> missing data point as the winner. Besides that, it seems to me that
> seek time is one of the most important features for a DB server, which
> means that the SCSI drives are the clear winners and the non-WD SATA
> drives are the embarrassing losers. Transfer rate is import, but
> perhaps less so because DBs tend to read/write small blocks rather
> than large files. On the server suite, which seems to me to be the
> most relevant for DBs, the Atlas 15k spanks the other drives by a
> fairly large margin (especially the lesser SATA drives). When you
> ignore the "consumer app" benchmarks, I wouldn't be so confident in
> saying that the Raptors "put on a good show".
>
> __
> David B. Held
> Software Engineer/Array Services Group
> 200 14th Ave. East, Sartell, MN 56377
> 320.534.3637 320.253.7800 800.752.8129
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
>
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: armtuk@gmail.com, dave.held@arrayservicesgrp.com
Subject: Re: Intel SRCS16 SATA raid?
In-Reply-To: <33c6269f05041415435ed69ca5@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox