Re: RAID vs. Single Big SCSI Disk
От | bob@bob.usuhs.mil |
---|---|
Тема | Re: RAID vs. Single Big SCSI Disk |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3A365038.3E21FDAE@bob.usuhs.mil обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | RAID vs. Single Big SCSI Disk ("G. Anthony Reina" <reina@nsi.edu>) |
Ответы |
Re: RAID vs. Single Big SCSI Disk
|
Список | pgsql-admin |
"G. Anthony Reina" wrote: > We have three databases for our scientific research and are getting > close to filling our 12 Gig partition. My boss thinks that just getting > a really big (i.e. > 30 Gig) SCSI drive will be cheaper and should do > nicely. Currently, we only have 4 people accessing the database and > usually only have 1-2 jobs (e.g. selects, updates, etc.) going at any > one time (probably a high estimate). The db sits on a Pentium II/400 MHz > with RedHat 6.0. > > Other than mirroring, are there any other advantages (e.g. speed, cost) > of just getting a RAID controller over, say, a 73 Gig Ultra SCSI Cheetah > drive (which cost in the neighborhood of $1300). It sounds like you would be much better off with an Ultra ATA 66 software or hardware RAID solution. Maxtor 40 Gb ATA100 disks can be had for $100. each. Alone they operate near 20 Mb/sec and in a striped 2 disk Raid they can do 30-40 Mb/sec, probably faster than your Cheetah configuration for a fraction of the cost. 3ware makes a hardware RAID controller that would get you to 40 Mb/sec with two, or 70 mb/sec with four of these disks in RAID 0. With four disks in RAID 01 you can mirror and still get near 40 Mb/sec. The 3ware solution also relieves your cpu from the usual ATA overhead. > > > Also, can Postgres handle being spread over several disks? I'd think > that the RAID must control disk spanning, but just want to make sure > that Postgres would be compatible. That is transparent.
В списке pgsql-admin по дате отправления: