Re: Performance tuning in PostgreSQL
От | Daniel R. Anderson |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Performance tuning in PostgreSQL |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1048698876.12681.5.camel@ny-chicagostreet2c-110.buf.adelphia.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Performance tuning in PostgreSQL ("scott.marlowe" <scott.marlowe@ihs.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Performance tuning in PostgreSQL
Re: Performance tuning in PostgreSQL |
Список | pgsql-general |
<snip> > SCSI is almost > always faster than IDE, all other things being equal (i.e. my 80 gig IDE > "mass storage" drives are way faster than a 2 Gig Ultra Wide SCSI drive > from 6 years ago would be, but any modern SCSI drive will kick the butt on > my IDE drives. </snip> That's not /entirely/ true. There was an article on slashdot a while back about what exactly the differences between IDE and SCSI are. IDE has pretty much almost caught up to SCSI in terms of everything except testing -- i.e. one of the reasons SCSI drives cost so much more is that they are each run through extensive individual tests to make sure they're not gonna break down 5 minutes out of the box. The only other difference, if I remember correctly, was the amount of drives you could put on the same cable. I'm going out on a limb here, but while ATA133 or whatever you're running /needs/ a single cable and controller to itself SCSI can put several drives on the same cable while maintaining speed. So the good news is that if money is tight you could probably justify an IDE raid, but if you really need that extra reliability SCSI might be the answer. -- Daniel R. Anderson Chief Lab Rat and Helper Monkey Great Lakes Industries, Inc. 80 Pineview Ave. Buffalo, NY 14218 (716) 691-5900 x218 "Never let your schooling interfere with your education" -- Mark Twain
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: