Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.208.211]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B8EF635665 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 18:57:41 -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 39087-02-9 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 22:57:24 +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 35CFF6364F5 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 18:04:04 -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 o22M3teo032411 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 2 Mar 2010 17:03:55 -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 17:04:02 -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=-0.655 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=AWL=-0.656, BAYES_50=0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201003/37 X-Sequence-Number: 37862 Scott Marlowe writes: > Have you tried short stroking the drives to see how they compare then? > Or is the reduced primary storage not a valid path here? No, have not tried it. By the time I got the machine we needed it in production so could not test anything. When the 2 new machines come I should hopefully have time to try a few strategies, including RAID0, to see what is the best setup for our needs. > RAID-10 of those to read at somewhere in or just past the gig per > second range with a fast pcie (x8 or x16 or so) controller. Thanks for the info. Contacted the vendor to see what pcie speed is the controller connected to, specially since we are considering getting 2 more machines from them. > drives equals the 24 10k drives you're looking at now. I can write at > about 300 to 350 Megs a second on a slower Areca 12xx series > controller and 8 2TB Western Digital Green drives, which aren't even How about read spead?