Re: Looking for a cheap upgrade (RAID)
От | scott.marlowe |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Looking for a cheap upgrade (RAID) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.33.0305051030490.2776-100000@css120.ihs.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Looking for a cheap upgrade (RAID) (Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Looking for a cheap upgrade (RAID)
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
On 3 May 2003, Ron Johnson wrote: > On Fri, 2003-05-02 at 13:53, Chad Thompson wrote: > > I have a server on a standard pc right now. > > PIII 700, 1Gig ram (SD), 40 Gig IDE, RedHat 8.0, PostgreSQL 7.3.1 > > > > The database has 3 tables that just broke 10 million tuples (yeah, i think > > im entering in to the world of real databases ;-) > > Its primarly bulk (copy) inserts and queries, rarely an update. > > > > I am looking at moving this to a P4 2.4G, 2 Gig Ram(DDR), RedHat 8, > > PostgreSQL 7.3.latest > [snip] > > How big do you expect the database to get? > > If I may be a contrarian, if under 70GB, then why not just get a 72GB > 10K RPM SCSI drive ($160) and a SCSI 160 card? OS, swap, input files, > etc, can go on a 7200RPM IDE drive. > > Much fewer moving parts than RAID, so more reliable... Sorry, everything else is true, but RAID is far more reliable, even if disk failure is more likely. Since a RAID array (1 or 5) can run with one dead disk, and supports auto-rebuild from hot spares, there's really no way a single disk can be more reliable. It may have fewer failures, but that's not the same thing.
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: