On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 18:41:25 -0500,
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 07:20:27PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> My damn powerbook drive recently failed with very little warning, other
> than I did notice that disk activity seemed to be getting a bit slower.
Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Douglas McNaught <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never heard of a 15kRPM SATA drive.
>
> Well, dollar for dollar you would get the best performance from slower drives
> anyways since it would give you more spindles. 15kRPM
Steve Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On May 9, 2006, at 2:16 AM, Hannes Dorbath wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've just had some discussion with colleagues regarding the usage of
> > hardware or software raid 1/10 for our linux based database servers.
> >
> > I myself can't see much reason to
Douglas McNaught <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Vivek Khera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On May 9, 2006, at 11:51 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >
> >> 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 s
Vivek Khera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On May 9, 2006, at 11:51 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>> 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
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
On May 9, 2006, at 8:51 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
("Using SATA drives is always a bit of risk, as some drives are lying
about whether they are caching or not.")
Don't buy those drives. That's unrelated to whether you use hardware
or software RAID.
Sorry that is an extremely misleading st
Don't buy those drives. That's unrelated to whether you use hardware
or software RAID.
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 n
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 12:10:32 +0200,
"Jean-Yves F. Barbier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Naa, you can find ATA &| SATA ctrlrs for about EUR30 !
But those are the ones that you would generally be better off not using.
> Definitely NOT, however if your server doen't have a heavy load, the
> so
On May 9, 2006, at 2:16 AM, Hannes Dorbath wrote:
Hi,
I've just had some discussion with colleagues regarding the usage
of hardware or software raid 1/10 for our linux based database
servers.
I myself can't see much reason to spend $500 on high end controller
cards for a simple Raid 1.
On 09.05.2006 12:10, Jean-Yves F. Barbier wrote:
Naa, you can find ATA &| SATA ctrlrs for about EUR30 !
Sure, just for my colleagues Raid Controller = IPC Vortex, which resides
in that price range.
For bi-core CPUs, it might be true
I've got that from pgsql.performance for multi-way opter
Hi Hannes,
Hannes Dorbath a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I've just had some discussion with colleagues regarding the usage of
> hardware or software raid 1/10 for our linux based database servers.
>
> I myself can't see much reason to spend $500 on high end controller
> cards for a simple Raid 1.
Naa, you
12 matches
Mail list logo
