From: Geoff Tolley <geoff@polimetrix.com>
To: Ron <rjpeace@earthlink.net>
Cc: jason@ohloh.net <jason@ohloh.net>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: SCSI vs SATA
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 18:54:07 -0700
Message-ID: <4613053F.5070401@polimetrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E1HYsBX-0006ZE-JG@elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
References: <9C0858F5-0A48-4AF9-80FF-E4BA14F0F965@ohloh.net>
<E1HYs6Y-0008O5-SN@elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
<E1HYsBX-0006ZE-JG@elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Ron wrote:
> At 07:07 PM 4/3/2007, Ron wrote:
>> For random IO, the 3ware cards are better than PERC
>>
>> > Question: will 8*15k 73GB SCSI drives outperform 24*7K 320GB SATA II
>> drives?
>>
>> Nope. Not even if the 15K 73GB HDs were the brand new Savvio 15K
>> screamers.
>>
>> Example assuming 3.5" HDs and RAID 10 => 4 15K 73GB vs 12 7.2K 320GB
>> The 15K's are 2x faster rpm, but they are only ~23% the density =>
>> advantage per HD to SATAs.
>> Then there's the fact that there are 1.5x as many 7.2K spindles as 15K
>> spindles...
> Oops make that =3x= as many 7.2K spindles as 15K spindles...
I don't think the density difference will be quite as high as you seem to
think: most 320GB SATA drives are going to be 3-4 platters, the most that a
73GB SCSI is going to have is 2, and more likely 1, which would make the
SCSIs more like 50% the density of the SATAs. Note that this only really
makes a difference to theoretical sequential speeds; if the seeks are
random the SCSI drives could easily get there 50% faster (lower rotational
latency and they certainly will have better actuators for the heads).
Individual 15K SCSIs will trounce 7.2K SATAs in terms of i/os per second.
What I always do when examining hard drive options is to see if they've
been tested (or a similar model has) at http://www.storagereview.com/ -
they have a great database there with lots of low-level information
(although it seems to be down at the time of writing).
But what's likely to make the largest difference in the OP's case (many
inserts) is write caching, and a battery-backed cache would be needed for
this. This will help mask write latency differences between the two
options, and so benefit SATA more. Some 3ware cards offer it, some don't,
so check the model.
How the drives are arranged is going to be important too - one big RAID 10
is going to be rather worse than having arrays dedicated to each of
pg_xlog, indices and tables, and on that front the SATA option is going to
grant more flexibility.
If you care about how often you'll have to replace a failed drive, then the
SCSI option no question, although check the cases for hot-swapability.
HTH,
Geoff
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: geoff@polimetrix.com, rjpeace@earthlink.net, jason@ohloh.net
Subject: Re: SCSI vs SATA
In-Reply-To: <4613053F.5070401@polimetrix.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