Re: 8x2.5" or 6x3.5" disks - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Craig James
Subject Re: 8x2.5" or 6x3.5" disks
Date
Msg-id 479F40EF.6070802@emolecules.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 8x2.5" or 6x3.5" disks  ("Mike Smith" <mike.smith@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-performance
Mike Smith wrote:
> I’ve seen a few performance posts on using different hardware
> technologies to gain improvements. Most of those comments are on raid,
>  interface and rotation speed.   One area that doesn’t seem to have
>  been mentioned  is to  run your disks empty.
> ...
> On the outside of the disk you get a lot more data per seek than on the
> inside. Double whammy you get it faster.
>
> Performance  can vary more than  100% between the outer and inner tracks
> of the disk.   So running a slower disk twice as big may give you more
> benefit than running a small capacity 15K disk full.  The slower disks
> are also generally more reliable and mostly much cheaper.
> ...
> This is not very green as you need to buy more disks for the same amount
> of data and its liable to upset your purchasing department who won’t
> understand why you don’t want to fill your disks up.

So presumably the empty-disk effect could also be achieved by partitioning, say 25% of the drive for the database, and
75%empty partition.  But in fact, you could use that "low performance 75%" for rarely-used or static data, such as the
outputfrom pg_dump, that is written during non-peak times. 

Pretty cool.

Craig

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Scott Marlowe"
Date:
Subject: Re: 8x2.5" or 6x3.5" disks
Next
From: Matthew
Date:
Subject: Re: RAID arrays and performance