Re: SCSI vs SATA
От | jason@ohloh.net |
---|---|
Тема | Re: SCSI vs SATA |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 649E6F5F-13D0-4D2F-A842-722320FF8F3C@ohloh.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: SCSI vs SATA (Carlos Moreno <moreno_pg@mochima.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: SCSI vs SATA
Re: SCSI vs SATA Re: SCSI vs SATA |
Список | pgsql-performance |
In a perhaps fitting compromise, I have decide to go with a hybrid solution: 8*73GB 15k SAS drives hooked up to Adaptec 4800SAS PLUS 6*150GB SATA II drives hooked up to mobo (for now) All wrapped in a 16bay 3U server. My reasoning is that the extra SATA drives are practically free compared to the rest of the system (since the mobo has 6 onboard connectors). I plan on putting the pg_xlog & operating system on the sata drives and the tables/indices on the SAS drives, although I might not use the sata drives for the xlog if they dont pan out perf-wise. I plan on getting the battery backed module for the adaptec (72 hours of charge time). Thanks to everyone for the valuable input. I hope i can do you all proud with the setup and postgres.conf optimizations. -jay On Apr 4, 2007, at 1:48 PM, Carlos Moreno wrote: > >> Problem is :), you can purchase SATA Enterprise Drives. > > Problem???? I would have thought that was a good thing!!! ;-) > > Carlos > -- > > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at > > http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: