> Personally, I've been unimpressed by Dell/Xeon; I think the Sun might do > better than you think, comparitively. On all the Dell servers I've used > so > far, I've not seen performance that comes even close to the hardware > specs.
It's true that any difference will be far less than the GHz ratio, and I can't really speak for Dell servers in general, but a pair of 2.4GHz Xeons in a Dell workstation gets about 23 SPECint_rate2000, and a pair of 1GHz UltraSparc IIIs in a SunFire V210 gets 10. The ratios are the same for other non-FP benchmarks. Now the Suns do have some architectural advantages, and they used to have far superior memory bandwidth than intel boxes, and they often still do for more than 2 cpus, and definitely do for more than four. But my personal experience is that for 4 cpus or less the entry level UNIX offerings from Sun/IBM/HP fell behind in raw performance (FP excepted) two or three years ago. The posh hardware's an entirely different matter of course. On the other hand, I can think of innumerable non performance related reasons to buy a 'real UNIX box' as a low end DB server. CPU performance is way down the priority list compared with IO throughput, stability, manageability, support, etc etc. Given that the original question was about a very heavily write-oriented environment, I'd take the Sun every day of the week, assuming that those compile option changes have sorted out the oddly slow PG performance at last. M ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])