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
