On Dec 12, 2005, at 2:19 PM, Vivek Khera wrote:
On Dec 12, 2005, at 5:16 PM, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
We've swapped out the DIMMs on MegaRAID controllers. Given the
cost of a standard low-end DIMM these days (which is what the LSI
controllers use last I checked), it is a very cheap upgrade.
On Mon, 2005-12-12 at 16:19, Vivek Khera wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2005, at 5:16 PM, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
>
> > We've swapped out the DIMMs on MegaRAID controllers. Given the
> > cost of a standard low-end DIMM these days (which is what the LSI
> > controllers use last I checked), it is a very c
On Dec 12, 2005, at 5:16 PM, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
We've swapped out the DIMMs on MegaRAID controllers. Given the
cost of a standard low-end DIMM these days (which is what the LSI
controllers use last I checked), it is a very cheap upgrade.
What's the max you can put into one of these c
On Dec 12, 2005, at 1:59 PM, Vivek Khera wrote:
From where did you get LSI MegaRAID controller with 512MB? The
320-2X doesn't seem to come with more than 128 from the factory.
Can you just swap out the DIMM card for higher capacity?
We've swapped out the DIMMs on MegaRAID controllers. Gi
On Dec 8, 2005, at 2:21 PM, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
For the write transactions, the speed and size of the DIMM on that LSI
card will matter the most. I believe the max memory on that
adapter is
512MB. These cost so little that it wouldn't make sense to go with
anything smaller.
From wher
On Dec 9, 2005, at 10:50 AM, Andreas Pflug wrote:
Well, if your favourite dealer can't supply you with such common
equipment as 15k drives you should consider changing the dealer.
They don't seem to be aware of db hardware reqirements.
Thanks to all for your opinions. I'm definitely stick
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 09:15:25 -0500
"Jeremy Haile" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > one other note, you probably don't want to use all the disks in a
> > raid10 array, you probably want to split a pair of them off into a
> > seperate raid1 array and put your WAL on it.
>
> Is a RAID 1 array of two
Frank Wiles wrote:
I agree, the extra spindles and lower seek times are better if all
you are concerned about is raw speed.
However, that has to be balanced, from an overall perspective, with
the nice single point of ordering/contact/support/warranty of the
one vendor. It's a tou
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:50:33 -0600
Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Power consumption isn't much differnt, about a watt more for the 15ks,
> so that's no big deal. I'd do a bit of googling to see if there are a
> lot more horror stories with 15k drives than with the 10k ones.
Just an
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 17:03:27 -
"Dave Page" wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> > Vivek Khera
>
> > I have a choice to make on a RAID enclosure:
> >
> > 14x 36GB 15kRPM ultra 320 SCSI drives
> >
> > OR
> >
> > 12x 7
> one other note, you probably don't want to use all the disks in a raid10
> array, you probably want to split a pair of them off into a seperate
> raid1 array and put your WAL on it.
Is a RAID 1 array of two disks sufficient for WAL? What's a typical
setup for a high performance PostgreSQL ins
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, Vivek Khera wrote:
I have a choice to make on a RAID enclosure:
14x 36GB 15kRPM ultra 320 SCSI drives
OR
12x 72GB 10kRPM ultra 320 SCSI drives
both would be configured into RAID 10 over two SCSI channels using a megaraid
320-2x card.
My goal is speed. Either would pro
On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 11:52 -0500, Vivek Khera wrote:
> I have a choice to make on a RAID enclosure:
>
> 14x 36GB 15kRPM ultra 320 SCSI drives
>
> OR
>
> 12x 72GB 10kRPM ultra 320 SCSI drives
>
> both would be configured into RAID 10 over two SCSI channels using a
> megaraid 320-2x card.
>
>
On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 10:52, Vivek Khera wrote:
> I have a choice to make on a RAID enclosure:
>
> 14x 36GB 15kRPM ultra 320 SCSI drives
>
> OR
>
> 12x 72GB 10kRPM ultra 320 SCSI drives
>
> both would be configured into RAID 10 over two SCSI channels using a
> megaraid 320-2x card.
>
> My go
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Vivek Khera
> Sent: 08 December 2005 16:52
> To: Postgresql Performance
> Subject: [PERFORM] opinion on disk speed
>
> I have a choice to make on a RAID enclosure:
>
I have a choice to make on a RAID enclosure:
14x 36GB 15kRPM ultra 320 SCSI drives
OR
12x 72GB 10kRPM ultra 320 SCSI drives
both would be configured into RAID 10 over two SCSI channels using a
megaraid 320-2x card.
My goal is speed. Either would provide more disk space than I would
need
16 matches
Mail list logo
