Greg Smith wrote:
On Fri, 22 May 2009, Scott Marlowe wrote:
It's much less common to see such a change in server class drives
This is a good point, and I just updated
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/SCSI_vs._IDE/SATA_Disks with a section
about this topic (the last one under "ATA Disks").
An
On Fri, 22 May 2009, Scott Marlowe wrote:
It's much less common to see such a change in server class drives
This is a good point, and I just updated
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/SCSI_vs._IDE/SATA_Disks with a section
about this topic (the last one under "ATA Disks").
--
* Greg Smith gsm
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 22 May 2009, Robert Schnabel wrote:
>
>> No, the original drives I have work fine. The problem, as you point out,
>> is that Seagate changed the firmware and made it so that you cannot flash it
>> to a different version.
>
> The subtle
On Fri, 22 May 2009, Robert Schnabel wrote:
No, the original drives I have work fine. The problem, as you point out, is
that Seagate changed the firmware and made it so that you cannot flash it to
a different version.
The subtle point here is that whether a drive has been out long enough to
Greg Smith wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2009, Robert Schnabel wrote:
A word of warning for anyone out there considering the Seagate 1.5TB
SATA drives (ST31500341AS)...I'm going through a fiasco right now
with these drives and I wish I had purchased more when I did.
I don't think you came to the right
Thanks for all the suggestions i will go with 8 10k disks, well 9 if you count
the spare now that i am scared :)
Regards,
Miguel Angel.
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-pe
On Thu, 21 May 2009, Robert Schnabel wrote:
A word of warning for anyone out there considering the Seagate 1.5TB
SATA drives (ST31500341AS)...I'm going through a fiasco right now with
these drives and I wish I had purchased more when I did.
Those drives are involved in the worst firmware deba
On Thu, 21 May 2009, Scott Marlowe wrote:
But in a RAID-10 you aggreate pairs like RAID-0, so you could write
250(n/2) times per second on 15k where n=4 and 166(n/2) for 10k drives
where n=8. So 500 versus 664... ? Or am I getting it wrong.
Adding more spindles doesn't improve the fact that
On 5/21/09 3:05 PM, "Robert Haas" wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Scott Marlowe
> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Matthew Wakeling
>>> wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2009, Linos wrote:
>
> i have to buy a
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Matthew Wakeling
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 May 2009, Linos wrote:
i have to buy a new server and in the budget i have (small) i have
>>
On 5/21/09 2:41 PM, "Scott Marlowe" wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Matthew Wakeling
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 May 2009, Linos wrote:
i have to buy a new server and in the budget i have (small) i have
to sel
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Matthew Wakeling wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 May 2009, Linos wrote:
>>>
>>> i have to buy a new server and in the budget i have (small) i have
>>> to select one of this two options:
>>>
>>> -4 sas 146gb 15k rpm
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Matthew Wakeling wrote:
> On Thu, 21 May 2009, Linos wrote:
>>
>> i have to buy a new server and in the budget i have (small) i have
>> to select one of this two options:
>>
>> -4 sas 146gb 15k rpm raid10.
>> -8 sas 146gb 10k rpm raid10.
>
> It depends what
Matthew Wakeling wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2009, Linos wrote:
i have to buy a new server and in the budget i have (small) i have
to select one of this two options:
-4 sas 146gb 15k rpm raid10.
-8 sas 146gb 10k rpm raid10.
It depends what you are doing. I think in most situations, the second
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Robert Schnabel wrote:
> the phone with Seagate. When I built the first array I bought a single
> spare drive. As soon as two drives die I'm going to be in the position of
> having to either scrap all of them or buy a new controller that will work
> with the new
On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 10:25 -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Linos wrote:
> > Hello,
> >i have to buy a new server and in the budget i have (small) i have to
> > select one of this two options:
> >
> > -4 sas 146gb 15k rpm raid10.
> > -8 sas 146gb 10k rpm rai
Matthew Wakeling wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2009, Linos wrote:
i have to buy a new server and in the budget i have (small) i
have to select one of this two options:
-4 sas 146gb 15k rpm raid10.
-8 sas 146gb 10k rpm raid10.
It depends what you are doing. I think in most situations, the second
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Linos wrote:
> Hello,
> i have to buy a new server and in the budget i have (small) i have to
> select one of this two options:
>
> -4 sas 146gb 15k rpm raid10.
> -8 sas 146gb 10k rpm raid10.
>
> The server would not be only dedicated to postgresql but to be
On Thu, 21 May 2009, Linos wrote:
i have to buy a new server and in the budget i have (small) i have to
select one of this two options:
-4 sas 146gb 15k rpm raid10.
-8 sas 146gb 10k rpm raid10.
It depends what you are doing. I think in most situations, the second
option is better, but there
Hello,
i have to buy a new server and in the budget i have (small) i have to select
one of this two options:
-4 sas 146gb 15k rpm raid10.
-8 sas 146gb 10k rpm raid10.
The server would not be only dedicated to postgresql but to be a file server,
the rest of options like plenty of ram and batt
20 matches
Mail list logo
