Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: RAID 0 not as fast as expected
- From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
- To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
- Subject: Re: RAID 0 not as fast as expected
- Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 17:44:48 -0700
Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
On Sat, Sep 16, 2006 at 04:46:04PM -0700, Luke Lonergan wrote:Yes. What's pretty large? We've had to redefine large recently, now we're talking about systems with between 100TB and 1,000TB.Do you actually have PostgreSQL databases in that size range?
No, they have databases in MPP that are that large :) Joshua D. Drake
/* Steinar */
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
- References:
- Re: RAID 0 not as fast as expected
- From: Bucky Jordan
- Re: RAID 0 not as fast as expected
- From: Luke Lonergan
- Re: RAID 0 not as fast as expected
- From: Steinar H. Gunderson
- Re: RAID 0 not as fast as expected
- Prev by Date: Re: RAID 0 not as fast as expected
- Next by Date: Partition elimination problem
- Previous by thread: Re: RAID 0 not as fast as expected
- Next by thread: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as expected)
- Indexes: