Ivan Voras wrote:
(or if you are looking at raw numbers: a 15,000 RPM drive will sustain
15000/60=250 random IOs per second (IOPS)
That's only taking into account the rotation speed--a 15K drive can do
250 physical commits per second if you never seek anywhere. A true IOPS
number also consid
Janning wrote:
IMHO it is looking quite fast compared to the values mentioned in the article.
The tests in the article were using the 2006 versions of the same drive
you have, so I'd certainly hope yours are faster now.
What values do you expect with a very expensive setup like many spind
On 15 June 2010 18:22, Janning wrote:
>> The figures are ok if the tests were done on a single drive (i.e. not
>> your RAID-0 array).
>
> Ahh, I meant raid-1, of course. Sorry for this.
> I tested my raid 1 too and it looks quite the same. Not much difference.
This is expected: a RAID-1 array (
On Tuesday, June 15, 2010, Janning wrote:
> ok, I will look for a hoster who can provide this. Most hosters normaly
> offer lots of ram and cpu but no advanced disk configuration.
>
I've noticed that too, even Rackspace doesn't offer a standard config that
anyone would actually want to use for
> thanks very much for your
> help.
> It gave me a good idea of what to do. If you have further
> recommendations, I
> would be glad to here them.
I guess you should give more info about the expected
workload of your server(s)... otherwise you'll risk spend
too much money/spend your money in a
On Tuesday 15 June 2010 15:16:19 Ivan Voras wrote:
> On 06/15/10 14:59, Janning wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > as we encountered some limitations of our cheap disk setup, I really
> > would like to see how cheap they are compared to expensive disk setups.
> >
> > We have a 12 GB RAM machine with intel
On 06/15/10 14:59, Janning wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> as we encountered some limitations of our cheap disk setup, I really would
> like to see how cheap they are compared to expensive disk setups.
>
> We have a 12 GB RAM machine with intel i7-975 and using
> 3 disks "Seagate Barracuda 7200.11, ST31500
oops, sent this to performance by mistake.
Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
All these replies are really interesting, but the point is not that my
RAIDs are too slow, or that my CPUs are too slow. My point is that, for
long stretches of time, by database doesn't come anywhere near using the
capacity of the
> "JWB" == Jeffrey W Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JWB> All these replies are really interesting, but the point is not that my
JWB> RAIDs are too slow, or that my CPUs are too slow. My point is that, for
JWB> long stretches of time, by database doesn't come anywhere near using the
JWB> ca
> "GS" == Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
GS> For write heavy application I would expect RAID5 to be a lose on
GS> any software-raid based solution. Only with good hardware raid
GS> systems with very large battery-backed cache would it begin to be
GS> effective.
Who in their right mind
On Wed, 2004-09-15 at 02:39, Michael Paesold wrote:
> Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
>
> > Current issue:
> >
> > A dual 64-bit Opteron 244 machine with 8GB main memory, two 4-disk RAID5
> > arrays (one for database, one for xlogs). PG's config is extremely
> > generous, and in isolated benchmarks it's
On Tue, 2004-09-14 at 14:45, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 11:11:38AM -0700, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
> > procs ---memory-- ---swap-- -io --system-- cpu
> > r b swpd free buff cache si sobibo incs us sy id wa
> > 3 0216
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 11:11:38AM -0700, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
> procs ---memory-- ---swap-- -io --system-- cpu
> r b swpd free buff cache si sobibo incs us sy id wa
> 3 0216 13852 39656 773972400 820 2664 2868 2557 1
On Tue, 2004-09-14 at 10:28, Vivek Khera wrote:
> > "SW" == Shane Wright writes:
>
> SW> But, we have now taken the plunge and I'm in a position to do some
> SW> benchmarking to actually get some data. Basically I was wondering if
> SW> anyone else had any particular recommendations (or requ
> "SW" == Shane Wright writes:
SW> But, we have now taken the plunge and I'm in a position to do some
SW> benchmarking to actually get some data. Basically I was wondering if
SW> anyone else had any particular recommendations (or requests) about the
SW> most useful kinds of benchmarks to do.
15 matches
Mail list logo
