Unix Technical Forum

Re: Lower Random Access Time vs RAID 0 / 1

This is a discussion on Re: Lower Random Access Time vs RAID 0 / 1 within the Pgsql Performance forums, part of the PostgreSQL category; --> 1= a better HD comparison resource can be found at www.storagereview.com http://www.storagereview.com/comparison.html You will find that storagereview has better ...


Go Back   Unix Technical Forum > Database Server Software > PostgreSQL > Pgsql Performance

FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 04-19-2008, 10:24 AM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Lower Random Access Time vs RAID 0 / 1

1= a better HD comparison resource can be found at www.storagereview.com
http://www.storagereview.com/comparison.html

You will find that storagereview has better information on any and
all things HD than Tom's does.


2= DB servers work best with as many spindles as possible. None of
your example configurations is adequate; and any configuration with
only 1 HD is a data loss / data corruption disaster waiting to happen.
In general, the more spindles the better with any DB. The =minimum=
should be at least 4 HD's =dedicated= to the DB. OS HD's are
independent and in addition to the 4+ DB HDs.


3= "heavy duty large DB with mostly reads and heavy write actions
from time to time ( updates / huge transactions )." Does not have
anywhere near the precision needed to adequately describe your needs
in engineering terms.
How big a DB?
What % of the IO will be reads? % writes?
How big is a "huge transaction"?
Exactly what is the primary use case of this server?
etc. We need =numbers= if we are going to think about "speeds and
feeds" and specify HW.


4= =seriously= consider HW RAID controllers like 3ware (AKA AMCC) or
Areca. with BB IO caches.


You've got a lot more work ahead of you.
Ron


At 05:08 AM 3/22/2007, Michael Ben-Nes wrote:
>Hello
>
>I plan to buy a new development server and I wonder what will be the
>best HD combination.
>
>I'm aware that "best combination" also relay on DB structure and usage.
>so lets assume, heavy duty large DB with mostly reads and heavy
>write actions from time to time ( updates / huge transactions ).
>
>Here are the options:
>
>One very fast 10K RPM SATA Western Digital Raptor 150GB HD.
> Pro: very low access time and generally 30% faster regarding mainstream HD.
> Con: Expensive.
>
>2 mainstream 7.2K RPM SATA HD in RAID 0.
> Pro: fast transfer rate.
> Con: Access time is lowered as both HD has to sync for read /
> write ( true ? ).
>
>2 mainstream 7.2K RPM SATA HD in RAID 1.
> Pro: can access parallely different files in the same time ( true ? ).
> Con: Slower at writing.
>
>Random access benchmark:
><http://www23.tomshardware.com/storage.html?modelx=33&model1=280&model2=675&chart =32>http://www23.tomshardware.com/storag...675&chart =32
>
>
>Will be happy to hear recommendations and ideas.
>
>Thanks,
>Miki
>
>--
>--------------------------------------------------
>Michael Ben-Nes - Internet Consultant and Director.
><http://www.epoch.co.il>http://www.epoch.co.il - weaving the Net.
>Cellular: 054-4848113
>--------------------------------------------------



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.2.0
www.UnixAdminTalk.com