On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 10:15, Luke Lonergan wrote:
> Mike,
>
> On 8/10/06 4:09 AM, "Michael Stone" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 08:29:13PM -0700, Steve Poe wrote:
> >> I tried as you suggested and my performance dropped by 50%. I went from
> >> a 32 TPS to 16. Oh well.
> >
> > If you put data & xlog on the same array, put them on seperate
> > partitions, probably formatted differently (ext2 on xlog).
>
> If he's doing the same thing on both systems (Sun and HP) and the HP
> performance is dramatically worse despite using more disks and having faster
> CPUs and more RAM, ISTM the problem isn't the configuration.
>
> Add to this the fact that the Sun machine is CPU bound while the HP is I/O
> wait bound and I think the problem is the disk hardware or the driver
> therein.
I agree. The problem here looks to be the RAID controller.
Steve, got access to a different RAID controller to test with?
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
