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

From david@lang.hm
Subject Re: 8x2.5" or 6x3.5" disks
Date
Msg-id alpine.DEB.1.00.0801290030390.16707@asgard.lang.hm
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 8x2.5" or 6x3.5" disks  (Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@tweakers.net>)
Responses Re: 8x2.5" or 6x3.5" disks  ("Claus Guttesen" <kometen@gmail.com>)
Re: 8x2.5" or 6x3.5" disks  (Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@tweakers.net>)
List pgsql-performance
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Arjen van der Meijden wrote:

> On 28-1-2008 20:25 Christian Nicolaisen wrote:
>> So, my question is: should I go for the 2.5" disk setup or 3.5" disk setup,
>> and does the raid setup in either case look correct?
>
> Afaik they are about equal in speed. With the smaller ones being a bit faster
> in random access and the larger ones a bit faster for sequential
> reads/writes.

I missed the initial post in this thread, but I haven't seen any 15K rpm
2.5" drives, so if you compare 10K rpm 2.5" drives with 15K rpm 3.5"
drives you will see differences (depending on your workload and controller
cache)

David Lang


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Merlin Moncure"
Date:
Subject: Re: Hard Drive Usage for Speeding up Big Queries
Next
From: "Claus Guttesen"
Date:
Subject: Re: 8x2.5" or 6x3.5" disks