Vivek Khera wrote:
On May 9, 2006, at 11:51 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Sorry that is an extremely misleading statement. SATA RAID is
perfectly acceptable if you have a hardware raid controller with a
battery backup controller.
And dollar for dollar, SCSI will NOT be faster nor have the hard drive
capacity that you will get with SATA.
Does this hold true still under heavy concurrent-write loads? I'm
preparing yet another big DB server and if SATA is a better option, I'm
all (elephant) ears.
I didn't say better :). If you can afford, SCSI is the way to go.
However SATA with a good controller (I am fond of the LSI 150 series)
can provide some great performance.
I have not used, but have heard good things about Areca as well. Oh, and
make sure they are SATA-II drives.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== 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/
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
