Re: 8x2.5" or 6x3.5" disks
От | Arjen van der Meijden |
---|---|
Тема | Re: 8x2.5" or 6x3.5" disks |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 479F0003.6080003@tweakers.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: 8x2.5" or 6x3.5" disks (david@lang.hm) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
There are several suppliers who offer Seagate's 2.5" 15k rpm disks, I know HP, Dell are amongst those. So I was actually refering to those, rather than to the 10k one's. Best regards, Arjen david@lang.hm wrote: > On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Arjen van der Meijden wrote: > >> On 28-1-2008 20:25 Christian Nicolaisen wrote: >>> So, my question is: should I go for the 2.5" disk setup or 3.5" disk >>> setup, and does the raid setup in either case look correct? >> >> Afaik they are about equal in speed. With the smaller ones being a bit >> faster in random access and the larger ones a bit faster for >> sequential reads/writes. > > I missed the initial post in this thread, but I haven't seen any 15K rpm > 2.5" drives, so if you compare 10K rpm 2.5" drives with 15K rpm 3.5" > drives you will see differences (depending on your workload and > controller cache) > > David Lang > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to > choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not > match >
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: