From: Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>
To: Douglas McNaught <doug@mcnaught.org>
Cc: Vivek Khera <vivek@khera.org>
Cc: Pgsql-Performance ((E-mail)) <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Cc: PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Arguments Pro/Contra Software Raid
Date: 10 May 2006 00:41:20 -0400
Message-ID: <8764kexzin.fsf@stark.xeocode.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87mzdroyzb.fsf@suzuka.mcnaught.org>
References: <e3pmkc$12mk$1@news.hub.org>
<473FC220-A52C-4954-81E9-A14ED33164C2@blighty.com>
<4460BA8B.7010600@commandprompt.com>
<5AF87D32-F602-4973-AA21-84E0CFEA1774@khera.org>
<87mzdroyzb.fsf@suzuka.mcnaught.org>
Douglas McNaught <doug@mcnaught.org> writes:
> Vivek Khera <vivek@khera.org> writes:
>
> > On May 9, 2006, at 11:51 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >
> >> And dollar for dollar, SCSI will NOT be faster nor have the hard
> >> drive capacity that you will get with SATA.
> >
> > Does this hold true still under heavy concurrent-write loads? I'm
> > preparing yet another big DB server and if SATA is a better option,
> > I'm all (elephant) ears.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never heard of a 15kRPM SATA drive.
Well, dollar for dollar you would get the best performance from slower drives
anyways since it would give you more spindles. 15kRPM drives are *expensive*.
--
greg
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: gsstark@mit.edu, doug@mcnaught.org, vivek@khera.org, pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Arguments Pro/Contra Software Raid
In-Reply-To: <8764kexzin.fsf@stark.xeocode.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