Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8A4F632B8A
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Tue,  2 Mar 2010 17:35:01 -0400 (AST)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia,
	port 10024) with ESMTP id 48395-04
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Tue,  2 Mar 2010 21:34:51 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wy0-f174.google.com (mail-wy0-f174.google.com
	[74.125.82.174])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0129C62DBF0
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Tue,  2 Mar 2010 17:34:50 -0400 (AST)
Received: by wya21 with SMTP id 21so390061wya.19
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 02 Mar 2010 13:34:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references
	:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
	bh=ZGft6tG1IV5PtUR3rIkhQPxT9d/wNDPm4IJ20HluknE=;
	b=PIAVOh15nJeklBZ9J4Ly58WUe9l+vQwznOBOS91+A2ZKFwr9Mylel1Dlri4xeVP+Ib
	RtUk6UkPKeX7zFSsarymYpfYybMWNcX5Fn1hN1F3kf92eHfVfmRMVAFxXc143ujfaIga
	pbG/yBQktMwwNu1g8kU65iRATqeWQwaD8vGG4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:cc:content-type;
	b=J/N4J8VTzimCuiy/HilKKmAVFSWnp0EMuWEDkwbpzvvBTymwGOVWHjXUjegSil1odo
	en7MuYlDY+O0NJpk/6h+Prk2qVLMVjAmpnWiJQnxGn4jspdKBB8/+H5nrm0FsQSndqPF
	ah3FB0h2s8ADCPDdY0XAUBtDcLZr9e/lWT1BI=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.87.16 with SMTP id x16mr4494050wee.27.1267565689534; Tue,
	02 Mar 2010 13:34:49 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4B8D7A6C.3010304@gmail.com>
References: <cone.1267562557.293175.32557.1000@shelca>
	<4B8D7A6C.3010304@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 14:34:49 -0700
Message-ID: <dcc563d11003021334nc2e9505ued5d248562e70d1e@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 10K vs 15k rpm for analytics
From: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
To: Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga@gmail.com>
Cc: Francisco Reyes <lists@stringsutils.com>,
	Pgsql performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.001 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_50=0.001
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 201003/32
X-Sequence-Number: 37857

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?