Re: 10K vs 15k rpm for analytics
От | Greg Smith |
---|---|
Тема | Re: 10K vs 15k rpm for analytics |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4B8DA42A.7020806@2ndquadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | 10K vs 15k rpm for analytics (Francisco Reyes <lists@stringsutils.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: 10K vs 15k rpm for analytics
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
Francisco Reyes wrote: > Anyone has any experience doing analytics with postgres. In particular > if 10K rpm drives are good enough vs using 15K rpm, over 24 drives. > Price difference is $3,000. > Rarely ever have more than 2 or 3 connections to the machine. > So far from what I have seen throughput is more important than TPS for > the queries we do. Usually we end up doing sequential scans to do > summaries/aggregates. For arrays this size, the first priority is to sort out what controller you're going to get, whether it can keep up with the array size, and how you're going to support/monitor it. Once you've got all that nailed down, if you still have the option of 10K vs. 15K the trade-offs are pretty simple: -10K drives are cheaper -15K drives will commit and seek faster. If you have a battery-backed controller, commit speed doesn't matter very much. 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. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support greg@2ndQuadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.us
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: