Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Vivek Khera wrote:
> >
> > 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 that you will get with SATA.
> >
> > Does this hold true still under heavy concurrent-write loads? I'm
> > preparing yet another big DB server and if SATA is a better option, I'm
> > all (elephant) ears.
>
> I didn't say better :). If you can afford, SCSI is the way to go.
> However SATA with a good controller (I am fond of the LSI 150 series)
> can provide some great performance.
Basically, you can get away with cheaper hardware, but it usually
doesn't have the reliability/performance of more expensive options.
You want an in-depth comparison of how a server disk drive is internally
better than a desktop drive:
http://www.seagate.com/content/docs/pdf/whitepaper/D2c_More_than_Interface_ATA_vs_SCSI_042003.pdf
--
Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
