From: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
To: Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga@gmail.com>
Cc: Francisco Reyes <lists@stringsutils.com>
Cc: Pgsql performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: 10K vs 15k rpm for analytics
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 14:34:49 -0700
Message-ID: <dcc563d11003021334nc2e9505ued5d248562e70d1e@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4B8D7A6C.3010304@gmail.com>
References: <cone.1267562557.293175.32557.1000@shelca>
<4B8D7A6C.3010304@gmail.com>
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga@gmail.com> wrote:
> With 24 drives it'll probably be the controller that is the limiting factor
> of bandwidth. Our HP SAN controller with 28 15K drives delivers 170MB/s at
> maximum with raid 0 and about 155MB/s with raid 1+0. So I'd go for the 10K
> drives and put the saved money towards the controller (or maybe more than
> one controller).
That's horrifically bad numbers for that many drives. I can get those
numbers for write performance on a RAID-6 on our office server. I
wonder what's making your SAN setup so slow?
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: scott.marlowe@gmail.com, yebhavinga@gmail.com, lists@stringsutils.com
Subject: Re: 10K vs 15k rpm for analytics
In-Reply-To: <dcc563d11003021334nc2e9505ued5d248562e70d1e@mail.gmail.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