Hi all,
One of my personal rules is that whenever someone says they're going to
get a 10K RPM SCSI drive, I always tell them to go 2 x 10K RPM SCSI
drives (half the size each) and do RAID 0. Or, preferably go 3 x and do
RAID 5.
My point is that 10K RPM drives are nice, but more is better (and
effective) with SCSI.
:)
Regards and best wishes,
Justin Clift
Steve Wolfe wrote:
>
> > I respectfully disagree with Steve's "disk speed isn't terribly
> > important" -- it can be (and is totally dependent on what you're doing)
> and
> > since you have the on-board U160 with all the dual Athlon boards I've
> seen,
> > you might as well take full advantage of it.. That and you know Seagate
> has
> > those new 15,000 RPM U160 drives out *evil grin*..
>
> You can't take advantage of U160 without at *least* three disks. ; )
>
> If you have enough RAM for the cache, and you're not using fsync(), then
> an insert/update doesn't actually hit the disk, it just returns. The
> kernel can update the disk later at it's leisure. I'm not sorry that I
> spent all of the money for the large array that I use, it provides
> redundancy that lets me sleep easier - but I can guarantee that I'm not
> using 1/100th of it's potential as far as write capabilities.
>
> steve
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who
work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first
group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi
