Vivek Khera wrote:
>
> On May 9, 2006, at 11:51 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>> Sorry that is an extremely misleading statement. SATA RAID is
>> perfectly acceptable if you have a hardware raid controller with a
>> battery backup controller.
>>
>> And dollar for dollar, SCSI will NOT be faster nor have the hard drive
>> capacity that you will get with SATA.
>
> Does this hold true still under heavy concurrent-write loads? I'm
> preparing yet another big DB server and if SATA is a better option, I'm
> all (elephant) ears.
I didn't say better :). If you can afford, SCSI is the way to go.
However SATA with a good controller (I am fond of the LSI 150 series)
can provide some great performance.
I have not used, but have heard good things about Areca as well. Oh, and
make sure they are SATA-II drives.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/