On Thursday, March 11, 2010, Phillip Berry <pberry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wednesday 10 March 2010 18:32:41 Scott Marlowe wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 11:49 PM, Phillip Berry >> >> <pberry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Hi Everyone, >> > >> > We're in the market for a new DB server to replace our current one (yes >> > it's one of *those* questions) ;). >> > >> > It'll have quad core Xeons, 36GB RAM and some sort of Raid 10 >> > configuration. >> > >> > Our provider is pushing us towards 6 x SATA II disks in a Raid 10 >> > configuration or 4 x SAS disks in Raid 10 (budget constraints). >> >> Are those your only two options? No 6 SAS drives? Are you looking at >> 7200rpm or 10krpm SATA? 15krpm or 10krpm SAS? What RAID controller? >> Battery backed Cache? Software RAID? >> > > They're charging a lot more for SAS than for SATA so it's a budget constraint. And we can only fit > six drives in the machine so that limits the number of drives for the SATA option. > > Hardware raid controller for both options, but I'm not sure what brand (yet). > > 15,000rpm SAS > 10,000rpm SATA > > > As with everything it's a trade off: 4 SAS drives or 6 SATA II drives in raid 10. I'm trying to find > out if (for many many small reads and writes) one is more desirable than the other. How much do you have to cut your CPU and/or memory (CPU first!) to get to 6 SAS? It may be well worth considering.... -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
