Re: SCSI vs SATA - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Heikki Linnakangas
Subject Re: SCSI vs SATA
Date
Msg-id 4614C13C.6060107@enterprisedb.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: SCSI vs SATA  ("jason@ohloh.net" <jason@ohloh.net>)
List pgsql-performance
jason@ohloh.net wrote:
> In a perhaps fitting compromise, I have decide to go with a hybrid
> solution:
>
> 8*73GB 15k SAS drives hooked up to Adaptec 4800SAS
> PLUS
> 6*150GB SATA II drives hooked up to mobo (for now)
>
> All wrapped in a 16bay 3U server. My reasoning is that the extra SATA
> drives are practically free compared to the rest of the system (since
> the mobo has 6 onboard connectors). I plan on putting the pg_xlog &
> operating system on the sata drives and the tables/indices on the SAS
> drives, although  I might not use the sata drives for the xlog if they
> dont pan out perf-wise. I plan on getting the battery backed module for
> the adaptec (72 hours of charge time).

If you have an OLTP kind of workload, you'll want to have the xlog on
the drives with the battery backup module. The xlog needs to be fsync'd
every time you commit, and the battery backup will effectively eliminate
the delay that causes.

--
   Heikki Linnakangas
   EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Arjen van der Meijden
Date:
Subject: Re: SCSI vs SATA
Next
From: Ron
Date:
Subject: Re: SCSI vs SATA