Francisco Reyes wrote:
Anyone has any experience doing analytics with postgres. In particular
if 10K rpm drives are good enough vs using 15K rpm, over 24 drives.
Price difference is $3,000.
Rarely ever have more than 2 or 3 connections to the machine.
So far from what I have seen throughput is more important than TPS for
the queries we do. Usually we end up doing sequential scans to do
summaries/aggregates.
For arrays this size, the first priority is to sort out what controller
you're going to get, whether it can keep up with the array size, and how
you're going to support/monitor it. Once you've got all that nailed
down, if you still have the option of 10K vs. 15K the trade-offs are
pretty simple:
-10K drives are cheaper
-15K drives will commit and seek faster. If you have a battery-backed
controller, commit speed doesn't matter very much.
If you only have 2 or 3 connections, I can't imagine that the improved
seek times of the 15K drives will be a major driving factor. As already
suggested, 10K drives tend to be larger and can be extremely fast on
sequential workloads, particularly if you short-stroke them and stick to
putting the important stuff on the fast part of the disk.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx www.2ndQuadrant.us
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
