Re: Intel SRCS16 SATA raid?

From: Geoffrey
Subject: Re: Intel SRCS16 SATA raid?
Date: ,
Msg-id: 425F1B06.902@3times25.net
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Re: Intel SRCS16 SATA raid?  (Alex Turner)
List: pgsql-performance

Tree view

Intel SRCS16 SATA raid?  (Greg Stark, )
 Re: Intel SRCS16 SATA raid?  ("Mohan, Ross", )
  Re: Intel SRCS16 SATA raid?  ("Joshua D. Drake", )
   Re: Intel SRCS16 SATA raid?  (Marinos Yannikos, )
    Re: Intel SRCS16 SATA raid?  (Alex Turner, )
     Re: Intel SRCS16 SATA raid? (somewhat OT)  (Marinos Yannikos, )
 Re: Intel SRCS16 SATA raid?  (, )
  Re: Intel SRCS16 SATA raid?  (Alex Turner, )
   Re: Intel SRCS16 SATA raid?  (Alex Turner, )
    Re: Intel SRCS16 SATA raid?  (, )
  Re: Intel SRCS16 SATA raid?  (Bruce Momjian, )
 Re: Intel SRCS16 SATA raid?  ("Dave Held", )
  Re: Intel SRCS16 SATA raid?  (Alex Turner, )
  Re: Intel SRCS16 SATA raid?  (Alex Turner, )
   Re: Intel SRCS16 SATA raid?  (Geoffrey, )
 Re: Intel SRCS16 SATA raid?  ("Dave Held", )
  Re: Intel SRCS16 SATA raid?  (, )
  Re: Intel SRCS16 SATA raid?  (Alex Turner, )
   Re: Intel SRCS16 SATA raid?  (, )
   Re: Intel SRCS16 SATA raid?  (Vivek Khera, )
    Re: Intel SRCS16 SATA raid?  (Alex Turner, )
 Re: Intel SRCS16 SATA raid?  ("Dave Held", )

Alex Turner wrote:
> Looking at the numbers, the raptor with TCQ enabled was close or beat
> the Atlas III 10k drive on most benchmarks.
>
> Naturaly a 15k drive is going to be faster in many areas, but it is
> also much more expensive.  It was only 44% better on the server tests
> than the raptor with TCQ, but it costs nearly 300% more ($538 cdw.com,
> $180 newegg.com).

True, but that's a one time expense (300%) for a 44% gain ALL the time.
  '44% better' is nothing to sneeze at.  I'd easily pay the price for
the gain in a large server env.

--
Until later, Geoffrey


pgsql-performance by date:

From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: How to improve db performance with $7K?
From: Richard van den Berg
Date:
Subject: Re: Foreign key slows down copy/insert