Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02CE5133798E for ; Wed, 4 May 2011 02:33:44 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 12229-10 for ; Wed, 4 May 2011 05:33:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from shrek.krogh.cc (2605ds1-ynoe.0.fullrate.dk [90.184.12.24]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AC6313364DE for ; Wed, 4 May 2011 02:33:36 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by shrek.krogh.cc (Postfix) with ESMTP id 142BB2C763A; Wed, 4 May 2011 07:33:35 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at shrek.krogh.cc Received: from shrek.krogh.cc ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (shrek.krogh.cc [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1nqAXpIcgi8d; Wed, 4 May 2011 07:33:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [90.184.13.151] (2605ds1-ynoe.2.fullrate.dk [90.184.13.151]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jesper@krogh.cc) by shrek.krogh.cc (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 230272C7581; Wed, 4 May 2011 07:33:32 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4DC0E525.4060108@krogh.cc> Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 07:33:25 +0200 From: Jesper Krogh User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101208 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Willy-Bas Loos CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [PERFORMANCE] expanding to SAN: which portion best to move References: <4DC0D968.3030106@krogh.cc> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201105/44 X-Sequence-Number: 43553 On 2011-05-04 07:25, Willy-Bas Loos wrote: > are you saying that, generally speaking, moving the data would be better > unless the SAN performs worse than the disks? It was more, "given all the incertainties, that seems like the least risky". The SAN might actually be less well performing than what you currently have, you dont know yet I guess? > besides your point that it depends on what our end looks like i mean. > (and what do you mean by "the DAS way", sry no native speaker) DAS way => A disk array where the database has sole access to the hardware (not shared among other systems). Examples are Dell MD1200/1220 or similary. -- Jesper