Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.208.211]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD10D633949 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 17:32:35 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 21332-01-4 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 21:32:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from madmax.bizintegrators.com (madmax.bizintegrators.com [64.94.184.54]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E71CF634D98 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 17:30:24 -0400 (AST) Received: from shelca (p65-147.acedsl.com [66.114.65.147]) (authenticated bits=0) by madmax.bizintegrators.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id o22LUMpL020236 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 2 Mar 2010 16:30:23 -0500 (EST) References: Message-ID: X-Mailer: http://www.courier-mta.org/cone/ From: Francisco Reyes To: Scott Marlowe Cc: Pgsql performance Subject: Re: 10K vs 15k rpm for analytics Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:30:29 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Loftmail-Check: No X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 64.94.184.88 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.806 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=AWL=-0.807, BAYES_50=0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201003/31 X-Sequence-Number: 37856 Scott Marlowe writes: > Then the real thing to compare is the speed of the drives for > throughput not rpm. In a machine, simmilar to what I plan to buy, already in house 24 x 10K rpm gives me about 400MB/sec while 16 x 15K rpm (2 to 3 year old drives) gives me about 500MB/sec