Re: SCSI vs SATA
От | Ron |
---|---|
Тема | Re: SCSI vs SATA |
Дата | |
Msg-id | E1HYs6Y-0008O5-SN@elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | SCSI vs SATA ("jason@ohloh.net" <jason@ohloh.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: SCSI vs SATA
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
For random IO, the 3ware cards are better than PERC > Question: will 8*15k 73GB SCSI drives outperform 24*7K 320GB SATA II drives? Nope. Not even if the 15K 73GB HDs were the brand new Savvio 15K screamers. Example assuming 3.5" HDs and RAID 10 => 4 15K 73GB vs 12 7.2K 320GB The 15K's are 2x faster rpm, but they are only ~23% the density => advantage per HD to SATAs. Then there's the fact that there are 1.5x as many 7.2K spindles as 15K spindles... Unless your transactions are very small and unbuffered / unscheduled (in which case you are in a =lot= of trouble), The SATA set-up rates to be ~2x - ~3x faster ITRW than the SCSI set-up. Cheers, Ron Peacetree At 06:13 PM 4/3/2007, jason@ohloh.net wrote: >We need to upgrade a postgres server. I'm not tied to these specific >alternatives, but I'm curious to get feedback on their general >qualities. > >SCSI > dual xeon 5120, 8GB ECC > 8*73GB SCSI 15k drives (PERC 5/i) > (dell poweredge 2900) > >SATA > dual opteron 275, 8GB ECC > 24*320GB SATA II 7.2k drives (2*12way 3ware cards) > (generic vendor) > >Both boxes are about $8k running ubuntu. We're planning to setup with >raid10. Our main requirement is highest TPS (focused on a lot of >INSERTS). > >Question: will 8*15k SCSI drives outperform 24*7K SATA II drives? > >-jay > >---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: