PFC wrote:
Why do you claim that 'More platters also means slower seeks
and generally slower performance.'?
More platters -> more heads -> heavier head assembly -> slower seek
time
But..
More platters -> higher density -> less seek distance (in mm of head
movement) -> faster se
Greg Smith wrote:
>> Gigabyte should revamp their i-RAM to use ECC RAM of a larger
>> capacity... and longer lasting battery backup...
>
> I saw a rumor somewhere that they were close to having a new version of
> that using DDR2 ready, which would make it pretty easy to have 8GB on
> there.
I'm
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008, PFC wrote:
Why do you claim that 'More platters also means slower seeks
and generally slower performance.'?
More platters -> more heads -> heavier head assembly -> slower seek
time
I recall seeing many designs with more platters that have slower seek
times in benchmarks
Laszlo Nagy wrote:
> Question 1. We are going to use PostgreSQL 3.1 with FreeBSD. The pg docs
> say that it is better to use FreeBSD because it can alter the I/O
> priority of processes dynamically.
Where does it say that?
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.
PFC wrote:
Why do you claim that 'More platters also means slower seeks
and generally slower performance.'?
More platters -> more heads -> heavier head assembly -> slower
seek time
Note sure I've sen a lot of evidence of that in drive specifications!
Gigabyte should revamp their i-
Why do you claim that 'More platters also means slower seeks
and generally slower performance.'?
More platters -> more heads -> heavier head assembly -> slower seek time
But..
More platters -> higher density -> less seek distance (in mm of head
movement) -> faster seek time
Greg Smith wrote:
As for SCSI vs. SATA, I collected up the usual arguments on both sides
at http://www.postgresqldocs.org/index.php/SCSI_vs._IDE/SATA_Disks
Why do you claim that 'More platters also means slower seeks
and generally slower performance.'?
On the face of it, it should mean that t
Laszlo Nagy schrieb:
[...]
The RAID controller that I have selected can only handle 8 disks. I
guess I need to find a different one with 16 channels and use more
disks. So are you saying that with all disks in a bigger RAID 6 array, I
will get the most out of the hardware? In that case, I'll tr
Laszlo Nagy wrote:
Question 4. How to make the partitions? This is the hardest question.
Here is my plan:
- the OS resides on 2 disks, RAID 1
- the databases should go on 8 disks, RAID 0 + 1
Make sure you understand the difference between RAID 1+0 and RAID 0+1..
I suspect you'll end up going
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008, Laszlo Nagy wrote:
We already have a server but it is becoming slow and we would like to
have something that is faster.
What's it slow at? Have you identified the bottlenecks and current
sources of sluggish behavior? That sort of thing is much more informative
to look
I guess you mean postgresql 8.3.1? :-)
Yep. Sorry.
Question 3. FreeBSD 7.0 can use the ZFS file system. I suspect that UFS
2 + soft updates will be better, but I'm not sure. Which is better?
I'd stick with ufs2 atm. There are some issues with zfs which probably
have been ironed out
Question 1. We are going to use PostgreSQL 3.1 with FreeBSD. The pg
docs say that it is better to use FreeBSD because it can alter the
I/O priority of processes dynamically. The latest legacy release is
6.3 which is probably more stable. However, folks say that 7.0 has
superior performance on t
> I need to install a new server for postgresql 8.3. It will run two
> databases, web server and some background programs. We already have a
> server but it is becoming slow and we would like to have something that
> is faster. It is a cost sensitive application, and I would like to get
> your
13 matches
Mail list logo
