what partitioning? looking in published TPC-C reports, there is just space in an unused partition, typically 4X the size of the database. I think it is a good idea to have 5X the size of the db, this allows the actual prod db, one full backup (you should use LiteSpeed or equivalent) plus one restored copy of your db is you need it, leaving 40% free space.
I think no has done this partitioning with SATA because there is so much unused space after meeting IOPS requirements, why bother.

rwessel (robertwessel@yahoo.com) on 8/21/08 wrote:
---------------------------
>Joe Chang (jchang6@Xyahoo.com) on 8/19/08 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>1.2M tpm-C requires just under 100K warehouses
>>84MB / Wh = 8.4TB, or about 140 64GB drives
>>if we use the HP component costs, $349 per 15K HD,
>>excluding the $3.2K per MSA, which adds $134 to the average cost per HD, since applies to both,
>>so if 1900 HDDs are replaced by 140 SSDs, plus a bunch of 1TB SATA drives for space
>>requirements, we could afford $5K per 64G SSD.
>
>
>Can the 60 day storage requirement be sufficiently partitioned from the active
>part of the database so that you can reasonably put it on much slower storage?
>I can't remember anyone ever doing it in recent memory, but then disk sizes are
>such that there's always going to be a huge amount of extra storage once you get
>the required number of actuators in play.