Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9C9D2E0065 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:28:33 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 26339-10 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:28:26 -0400 (AST) Received: from adonis.tweakers.net (adonis.tweakers.net [213.239.154.11]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACC5A2E00C4 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:28:29 -0400 (AST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by adonis.tweakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C0F45DC2E6; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:28:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from adonis.tweakers.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (adonis.tweakers.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 23054-10; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:28:15 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.1.34] (82-169-23-111.ip.telfort.nl [82.169.23.111]) by adonis.tweakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87BED5DC25D; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:28:15 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <479E3AE5.20600@tweakers.net> Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:28:21 +0100 From: Arjen van der Meijden User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Christian Nicolaisen CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: 8x2.5" or 6x3.5" disks References: <285fb20801281125k641902feo8d74b1c68640d94b@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <285fb20801281125k641902feo8d74b1c68640d94b@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.2 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200801/276 X-Sequence-Number: 28515 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