Re: Hardware advice for scalable warehouse db
| От | Rob Wultsch | 
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Hardware advice for scalable warehouse db | 
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAGdn2ujmS6Lk0-UMUUzHs5WSEqL+oBqNOE4WtW4QtHuta3-Jrw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст | 
| Ответ на | Re: Hardware advice for scalable warehouse db ("chris r." <chricki@gmx.net>) | 
| Список | pgsql-performance | 
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 11:49 AM, chris r. <chricki@gmx.net> wrote: > Hi list, > > Thanks a lot for your very helpful feedback! > >> I've tested MD1000, MD1200, and MD1220 arrays before, and always gotten >> seriously good performance relative to the dollars spent > Great hint, but I'm afraid that's too expensive for us. But it's a great > way to scale over the years, I'll keep that in mind. > > I had a look at other server vendors who offer 4U servers with slots for > 16 disks for 4k in total (w/o disks), maybe that's an even > cheaper/better solution for us. If you had the choice between 16 x 2TB > SATA vs. a server with some SSDs for WAL/indexes and a SAN (with SATA > disk) for data, what would you choose performance-wise? > > Again, thanks so much for your help. > > Best, > Chris SATA drives can easily flip bits and postgres does not checksum data, so it will not automatically detect corruption for you. I would steer well clear of SATA unless you are going to be using a fs like ZFS which checksums data. I would hope that a SAN would detect this for you, but I have no idea. -- Rob Wultsch wultsch@gmail.com
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: