From: Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@tweakers.net>
To: Christian Nicolaisen <blackbrrd@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: 8x2.5" or 6x3.5" disks
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:28:21 +0100
Message-ID: <479E3AE5.20600@tweakers.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <285fb20801281125k641902feo8d74b1c68640d94b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <285fb20801281125k641902feo8d74b1c68640d94b@mail.gmail.com>
On 28-1-2008 20:25 Christian Nicolaisen wrote:
> So, my question is: should I go for the 2.5" disk setup or 3.5" disk
> setup, and does the raid setup in either case look correct?
Afaik they are about equal in speed. With the smaller ones being a bit
faster in random access and the larger ones a bit faster for sequential
reads/writes.
My guess is that the 8x 2.5" configuration will be faster than the 6x
3.5", even if the 3.5"-drives happen to be faster they probably aren't
50% faster... So since you don't need the larger storage capacities that
3.5" offer, I'd go with the 8x 2.5"-setup.
Best regards,
Arjen
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: acmmailing@tweakers.net, blackbrrd@gmail.com
Subject: Re: 8x2.5" or 6x3.5" disks
In-Reply-To: <479E3AE5.20600@tweakers.net>
* 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