X-Original-To: pgsql-general-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A394B9F96B6;
	Wed, 10 May 2006 01:41:35 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 37277-01; Wed, 10 May 2006 01:41:31 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-
Received: from stark.xeocode.com (stark.xeocode.com [216.58.44.227])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B9549F931D;
	Wed, 10 May 2006 01:41:31 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=stark.xeocode.com)
	by stark.xeocode.com with smtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
	id 1FdgVl-0004nU-00; Wed, 10 May 2006 00:41:21 -0400
To: Douglas McNaught <doug@mcnaught.org>
Cc: Vivek Khera <vivek@khera.org>,
	"Pgsql-Performance ((E-mail))" <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>,
	PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Arguments Pro/Contra Software Raid
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>
In-Reply-To: <87mzdroyzb.fsf@suzuka.mcnaught.org>
From: Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>
Organization: The Emacs Conspiracy; member since 1992
Date: 10 May 2006 00:41:20 -0400
Message-ID: <8764kexzin.fsf@stark.xeocode.com>
Lines: 20
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200605/416
X-Sequence-Number: 95208

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