If I may ask what were your top three candidates before choosing the intel?
Also why not just plan a graceful switch to a replicated server? At some point you have to detect the drive is about to go (or it just goes without warning). Presumably that point will be in a while and be coordinated with an upgrade like 9.2 in a year. Finally why not the pci based cards? On Oct 2, 2011, at 16:33, David Boreham <david_l...@boreham.org> wrote: > On 10/2/2011 2:33 AM, Arjen van der Meijden wrote: >> >> >> Given the fact that you can get two 320's for the price of one 710, its >> probably always a bit difficult to actually make the choice (unless you want >> a fixed amount of disks and the best endurance possible for that). > > One thing I'd add to this is that the price/bit is more like 4X ($2k for the > 300G 710 vs $540 for the 300G 320). > The largest 710 drive is 300G whereas the largest 320 is 600G which may imply > that the 710's are twice > as over-provisioned as the 320. It may be that at present we're paying 2x for > the relative over-provisioning > and another 2x to enjoy the better silicon and firmware. This hopefully > implies that prices will fall > in the future provided a credible competitor emerges (Hitachi??). > > > > > > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
