On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 11:49 AM, chris r. <chri...@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 wult...@gmail.com -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
