From: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
To: Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.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 16:56:46 -0700
Message-ID: <dcc563d11003021556l295c10ebm9deadfbd8b984888@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4B8DA42A.7020806@2ndquadrant.com>
References: <cone.1267562557.293175.32557.1000@shelca>
<4B8DA42A.7020806@2ndquadrant.com>
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> If you only have 2 or 3 connections, I can't imagine that the improved seek
> times of the 15K drives will be a major driving factor. As already
> suggested, 10K drives tend to be larger and can be extremely fast on
> sequential workloads, particularly if you short-stroke them and stick to
> putting the important stuff on the fast part of the disk.
The thing I like most about short stroking 7200RPM 1 to 2 TB drives is
that you get great performance on one hand, and a ton of left over
storage for backups and stuff. And honestly, you can't have enough
extra storage laying about when working on databases.
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, greg@2ndquadrant.com, lists@stringsutils.com
Subject: Re: 10K vs 15k rpm for analytics
In-Reply-To: <dcc563d11003021556l295c10ebm9deadfbd8b984888@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