Re: Recomended FS - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Ben-Nes Michael
Subject Re: Recomended FS
Date
Msg-id 004f01c396f9$c339e400$0500a8c0@canaan.co.il
Whole thread Raw
In response to Recomended FS  ("Ben-Nes Michael" <miki@canaan.co.il>)
Responses Re: Recomended FS  (Nick Burrett <nick@dsvr.net>)
List pgsql-general
I'm not a HD specialist but I know scsi can handle load much better the IDE.

I read a benchmark lately ( don't really remember where ) checking SATA
against U160, the result show that SATA give better performance at start.

but later on the SCSI take it while HD cpu load is 30% and the SATA is 100%
load for the same task.

So I see its kinda obvious for me, if its a server serve lots of files and
the HD will work against lots of users ill go for the SCSI.
For a workstation or backup server ill go for IDE.

But still the greatest question is what FS to put on ?

I heard Reiesref can handle small files very quickly.
--------------------------
Canaan Surfing Ltd.
Internet Service Providers
Ben-Nes Michael - Manager
Tel: 972-4-6991122
Fax: 972-4-6990098
http://www.canaan.net.il
--------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Childs" <blue.dragon@blueyonder.co.uk>
To: "Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in>
Cc: "Ben-Nes Michael" <miki@canaan.co.il>; "postgresql"
<pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Recomended FS


>
>
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> >
> > A fast HD with a good RAID controller. Subject to budget, SCSI are beter
buy
> > than IDE. So does hardware SCSI RAID.
> >
> I hate asking this again. But WHY?
>
> What SCSI gain in spinning at 15000RPM and larger buffers. They
> lose in Space, and a slower bus. I would like to see some profe. Sorry.
>
> IDE Hard Disk 40Gb 7200RPM   = 133Mbs = 50UKP
> SCSI Hard Disk 36Gb 10000RPM = 160Mbs = 110UKP
>
> Is that extra 27Mbs worth another IDE Disk. and while you can get
> bigger faster SCSI disks prices go through the roof. Its no longer RAID
> but RAED (Redundant Array of Expensive Disks)
>
> My advise not that I've got any proof is that the money is better
> spent on a good disk controller and many disks than on each disk.
>
> In short if you have money to burn then by all means get SCSI but
> most people are better of spending
>
> $200 Disk Controller $200 Disk Controller
> $100 40Gb Disks Than $200 40Gb Disk
>
> Prices only approx.
>
> Peter Childs
>


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Nick Burrett
Date:
Subject: Re: ShmemAlloc errors
Next
From: Jeff
Date:
Subject: Re: VACUUM degrades performance significantly. Database