Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DC1564FCC7 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:17:05 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 03296-01-9 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:17:02 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com (wa-out-1112.google.com [209.85.146.177]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD7CD64FF0D for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:16:45 -0300 (ADT) Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id j4so230431wah.19 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:16:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=99w91KJSD+E6YgbTAhXm3Spcazuw3/rifEgfR4rB4wo=; b=UFIDKmCI0Sa4W7erRbmcbZevMTXBrkL4CE53rvtyWS5h9XePQbkI2XEVT8ZReEQudm NMC9Om+Xi+95E9wcYHhD719i8eHzMFPOAY84+9CfixOUUYUBoJPIoT2yIyB1eM4PPPYP lXSsBtbJwxATuOU5qVAM/wCOEsaFgWq8cjjM8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=wVz3AXaStq4hZhkStCXJD8rMuxufaxLdGOtryfSrg80GZTqfpDV7aLbbumCC9epDqu 4uqmDW5ZpQf3Nzt8SNf6MXj7j3IDBiEYs8RcHHAfykwNw/DDNBlCxdmhsm9yMsem2L/y KZMmNk6egertOX6FVi7qJXKPK3FyPM2taYi5k= Received: by 10.114.169.20 with SMTP id r20mr891611wae.198.1224782204943; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:16:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.39.11 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:16:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 11:16:44 -0600 From: "Scott Marlowe" To: Lionel Subject: Re: Hardware HD choice... Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200810/106 X-Sequence-Number: 31687 On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:38 AM, Scott Marlowe wrote: >> >> Any other better option that I could ask for ? > > Yes, more drives. 4 drives in a RAID10 is a good start. If you could > get 8 or 12 in one that's even better. > Note that for transactional databases SAS drives are usually noticeably better, but for reporting databases, SATA drives are generally fine, with 70-80% the sustained transfer rate at less than half the cost per megabyte. I'd recommend 8 SATA drives over 4 SAS drives for a reporting database. You'll spend about the same on twice the number of drives but you'll get much more storage, which is often useful when you need to work with large datasets.