Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: 8x2.5" or 6x3.5" disks
- From: david(at)lang(dot)hm
- To: Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing(at)tweakers(dot)net>
- Cc: Christian Nicolaisen <blackbrrd(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
- Subject: Re: 8x2.5" or 6x3.5" disks
- Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:32:25 -0800 (PST)
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Arjen van der Meijden wrote:
On 28-1-2008 20:25 Christian Nicolaisen wrote:So, my question is: should I go for the 2.5" disk setup or 3.5" disk setup, and does the raid setup in either case look correct?Afaik they are about equal in speed. With the smaller ones being a bit faster in random access and the larger ones a bit faster for sequential reads/writes.
I missed the initial post in this thread, but I haven't seen any 15K rpm 2.5" drives, so if you compare 10K rpm 2.5" drives with 15K rpm 3.5" drives you will see differences (depending on your workload and controller cache)
David Lang
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 8x2.5" or 6x3.5" disks
- From: Arjen van der Meijden
- Re: 8x2.5" or 6x3.5" disks
- From: Claus Guttesen
- Re: 8x2.5" or 6x3.5" disks
- References:
- 8x2.5" or 6x3.5" disks
- From: Christian Nicolaisen
- Re: 8x2.5" or 6x3.5" disks
- From: Arjen van der Meijden
- 8x2.5" or 6x3.5" disks
- Prev by Date: Re: Hard Drive Usage for Speeding up Big Queries
- Next by Date: Re: 8x2.5" or 6x3.5" disks
- Previous by thread: Re: 8x2.5" or 6x3.5" disks
- Next by thread: Re: 8x2.5" or 6x3.5" disks
- Indexes: