From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>
To: jason@ohloh.net
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: SCSI vs SATA
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 10:28:28 +0100
Message-ID: <4614C13C.6060107@enterprisedb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <649E6F5F-13D0-4D2F-A842-722320FF8F3C@ohloh.net>
References: <200704042027.l34KRMI03358@momjian.us>
<46140B49.3060205@commandprompt.com>
<46140F05.9090403@mochima.com>
<649E6F5F-13D0-4D2F-A842-722320FF8F3C@ohloh.net>
jason@ohloh.net wrote:
> In a perhaps fitting compromise, I have decide to go with a hybrid
> solution:
>
> 8*73GB 15k SAS drives hooked up to Adaptec 4800SAS
> PLUS
> 6*150GB SATA II drives hooked up to mobo (for now)
>
> All wrapped in a 16bay 3U server. My reasoning is that the extra SATA
> drives are practically free compared to the rest of the system (since
> the mobo has 6 onboard connectors). I plan on putting the pg_xlog &
> operating system on the sata drives and the tables/indices on the SAS
> drives, although I might not use the sata drives for the xlog if they
> dont pan out perf-wise. I plan on getting the battery backed module for
> the adaptec (72 hours of charge time).
If you have an OLTP kind of workload, you'll want to have the xlog on
the drives with the battery backup module. The xlog needs to be fsync'd
every time you commit, and the battery backup will effectively eliminate
the delay that causes.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
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: heikki@enterprisedb.com, jason@ohloh.net
Subject: Re: SCSI vs SATA
In-Reply-To: <4614C13C.6060107@enterprisedb.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