On Aug 10, 2007, at 4:36 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
I'm not so sure I agree. They are using LSI firmware now (and so is
everyone else). The servers are well built (highly subjective, I
admit) and configurable. I have had some bad experiences with IBM
gear (adaptec controller though), and
On 13-Aug-07, at 9:50 AM, Vivek Khera wrote:
On Aug 10, 2007, at 4:36 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
I'm not so sure I agree. They are using LSI firmware now (and so is
everyone else). The servers are well built (highly subjective, I
admit) and configurable. I have had some bad experiences
On 8/10/07, Arjen van der Meijden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9-8-2007 23:50 Merlin Moncure wrote:
Where the extra controller especially pays off is if you have to
expand to a second tray. It's easy to add trays but installing
controllers on a production server is scary.
For
On 8/9/07, Arjen van der Meijden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9-8-2007 23:50 Merlin Moncure wrote:
Where the extra controller especially pays off is if you have to
expand to a second tray. It's easy to add trays but installing
controllers on a production server is scary.
For
On 8/10/07, Decibel! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 05:50:10PM -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote:
Raid 10 is usually better for databases but in my experience it's a
roll of the dice. If you factor cost into the matrix a SAS raid 05
might outperform a SATA raid 10 because you
On 8/10/07, Vivek Khera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 9, 2007, at 3:47 PM, Joe Uhl wrote:
PowerEdge 1950 paired with a PowerVault MD1000
2 x Quad Core Xeon E5310
16 GB 667MHz RAM (4 x 4GB leaving room to expand if we need to)
PERC 5/E Raid Adapter
2 x 146 GB SAS in Raid 1 for OS +
-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Dell Hardware Recommendations
On 8/9/07, Arjen van der Meijden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9-8-2007 23:50 Merlin Moncure wrote:
Where the extra controller especially pays off is if you have to
expand to a second tray. It's easy to add trays
On Aug 9, 2007, at 3:47 PM, Joe Uhl wrote:
PowerEdge 1950 paired with a PowerVault MD1000
2 x Quad Core Xeon E5310
16 GB 667MHz RAM (4 x 4GB leaving room to expand if we need to)
PERC 5/E Raid Adapter
2 x 146 GB SAS in Raid 1 for OS + logs.
A bunch of disks in the MD1000 configured in Raid 10
We have a 30 GB database (according to pg_database_size) running nicely
on a single Dell PowerEdge 2850 right now. This represents data
specific to 1 US state. We are in the process of planning a deployment
that will service all 50 US states.
If 30 GB is an accurate number per state that means
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 03:47:09PM -0400, Joe Uhl wrote:
We have a 30 GB database (according to pg_database_size) running nicely
on a single Dell PowerEdge 2850 right now. This represents data
specific to 1 US state. We are in the process of planning a deployment
that will service all 50 US
On 8/9/07, Joe Uhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have a 30 GB database (according to pg_database_size) running nicely
on a single Dell PowerEdge 2850 right now. This represents data
specific to 1 US state. We are in the process of planning a deployment
that will service all 50 US states.
If
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 05:50:10PM -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote:
Raid 10 is usually better for databases but in my experience it's a
roll of the dice. If you factor cost into the matrix a SAS raid 05
might outperform a SATA raid 10 because you are getting better storage
utilization out of the
On 9-8-2007 23:50 Merlin Moncure wrote:
Where the extra controller especially pays off is if you have to
expand to a second tray. It's easy to add trays but installing
controllers on a production server is scary.
For connectivity-sake that's not a necessity. You can either connect
(two?)
Thanks for the input. Thus far we have used Dell but I would certainly
be willing to explore other options.
I found a Reference Guide for the MD1000 from April, 2006 that
includes info on the PERC 5/E at:
http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/products/pvaul/en/pvaul_md1000_solutions_guide.pdf
oops, the the wrong list... now the right one.
On 8/9/07, Decibel! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You forgot the list. :)
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 05:29:18PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On 8/9/07, Decibel! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, a good RAID controller can spread reads out across both
On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Joe Uhl wrote:
The MD1000 holds 15 disks, so 14 disks + a hot spare is the max. With
12 250GB SATA drives to cover the 1.5TB we would be able add another
250GB of usable space for future growth before needing to get a bigger
set of disks. 500GB drives would leave alot
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 08:58:19PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 05:29:18PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On 8/9/07, Decibel! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, a good RAID controller can spread reads out across both drives in
each mirror on a RAID10. Though, there
On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Decibel! wrote:
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 08:58:19PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 05:29:18PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On 8/9/07, Decibel! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, a good RAID controller can spread reads out across both drives in
each mirror
18 matches
Mail list logo
