From: Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga@gmail.com>
To: Francisco Reyes <lists@stringsutils.com>
Cc: Pgsql performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: 10K vs 15k rpm for analytics
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 21:51:56 +0100
Message-ID: <4B8D7A6C.3010304@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cone.1267562557.293175.32557.1000@shelca>
References: <cone.1267562557.293175.32557.1000@shelca>
Francisco Reyes wrote:
> Anyone has any experience doing analytics with postgres. In particular
> if 10K rpm drives are good enough vs using 15K rpm, over 24 drives.
> Price difference is $3,000.
>
> Rarely ever have more than 2 or 3 connections to the machine.
>
> So far from what I have seen throughput is more important than TPS for
> the queries we do. Usually we end up doing sequential scans to do
> summaries/aggregates.
>
With 24 drives it'll probably be the controller that is the limiting
factor of bandwidth. Our HP SAN controller with 28 15K drives delivers
170MB/s at maximum with raid 0 and about 155MB/s with raid 1+0. So I'd
go for the 10K drives and put the saved money towards the controller (or
maybe more than one controller).
regards,
Yeb Havinga
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: yebhavinga@gmail.com, lists@stringsutils.com
Subject: Re: 10K vs 15k rpm for analytics
In-Reply-To: <4B8D7A6C.3010304@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