At 11:41 PM 2/24/2006, Luke Lonergan wrote:
Dan,
On 2/24/06 4:47 PM, Dan Gorman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Was that sequential reads? If so, yeah you'll get 110MB/s? How big
was the datafile size? 8MB? Yeah, you'll get 110MB/s. 2GB? No, they
can't sustain that. There are so many details
Ron,
On 2/25/06 3:24 AM, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These are each RAID5 arrays of 8 internal SATA disks on 3Ware HW RAID
controllers.
Impressive IO rates. A more detailed HW list would help put them in context.
Which 3Ware? The 9550SX? How much cache on it (AFAIK, the only
options
Christopher Browne wrote:
After takin a swig o' Arrakan spice grog, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joshua D.
Drake) belched out:
Jeremy Haile wrote:
We are a small company looking to put together the most cost effective
solution for our production database environment. Currently in
production
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Dell often says part X is included, but part X is not the exact same as
part X sold by the original manufacturer. To hit a specific price
point, Dell is willing to strip thing out of commodity hardware, and
often does so even when performance suffers. For many people, this
Bruce,
On 2/24/06 7:14 AM, Luke Lonergan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, if you want RAID5, these machines work for me. The lack of RAID 10
could knock them out of contention for people.
Sorry in advance for the double post, but there's some more information on
this, which altogether
On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 10:27, Vivek Khera wrote:
On Feb 24, 2006, at 9:29 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Dell often says part X is included, but part X is not the exact
same as
part X sold by the original manufacturer. To hit a specific price
point, Dell is willing to strip thing out of
On Feb 24, 2006, at 11:32 AM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
My bad experiences were with the 2600 series machines. We now have
some
2800 and they're much better than the 2600/2650s I've used in the
past.
Yes, the 2450 and 2650 were CRAP disk performers. I haven't any 2850
to compare, just an
On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 10:40, Vivek Khera wrote:
On Feb 24, 2006, at 11:32 AM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
My bad experiences were with the 2600 series machines. We now have
some
2800 and they're much better than the 2600/2650s I've used in the
past.
Yes, the 2450 and 2650 were CRAP
I find this strains credibility, that this major manufacturer of PC's
would do something deceptive that hurts performance, when it would be
easily detected and widely reported. Can anyone cite a specific
instances where this has happened? Such as, I bought Dell model XYZ,
which was
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I find this strains credibility, that this major manufacturer of PC's
would do something deceptive that hurts performance, when it would be
easily detected and widely reported. Can anyone cite a specific
instances where this has happened? Such as, I bought Dell model
Joshua,
On 2/24/06 9:19 AM, Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This machine... if you run it in raid 5 will only get 7-9 megabytes a
second READ! performance. That is with 6 SCSI drives.
If you run it in RAID 10 you get a more reasonable 50-55 megabytes per
second.
I don't have it
Do you have a hw reference that runs that fast (5 x 30 = 150MB/s) ?
Luke Lonergan a crit:
Joshua,
On 2/24/06 9:19 AM, "Joshua D. Drake" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This machine... if you run it in raid 5 will only get 7-9 megabytes a
second READ! performance. That is with 6 SCSI
All,
Was that sequential reads? If so, yeah you'll get 110MB/s? How big
was the datafile size? 8MB? Yeah, you'll get 110MB/s. 2GB? No, they
can't sustain that. There are so many details missing from this test
that it's hard to have any context around it :)
I was getting about 40-50MB/s
Dan Gorman wrote:
All,
Was that sequential reads? If so, yeah you'll get 110MB/s? How big was
the datafile size? 8MB? Yeah, you'll get 110MB/s. 2GB? No, they can't
sustain that. There are so many details missing from this test that
it's hard to have any context around it :)
Actually
Dan,
On 2/24/06 4:47 PM, Dan Gorman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Was that sequential reads? If so, yeah you'll get 110MB/s? How big
was the datafile size? 8MB? Yeah, you'll get 110MB/s. 2GB? No, they
can't sustain that. There are so many details missing from this test
that it's hard to have any
Luke Lonergan wrote:
OK, how about some proof?
In a synthetic test that writes 32GB of sequential 8k pages on a machine
with 16GB of RAM:
= Write test results ==
time bash -c dd if=/dev/zero of=/dbfast1/llonergan/bigfile bs=8k
Luke Lonergan wrote:
Mark,
Hmmm - a bit humbled by Luke's machinery :-), however, mine is probably
competitive on (MB/s)/$
Not sure - the machines I cite are about $10K each. The machine you tested
was probably about $1500 a few years ago (my guess), and with a 5:1 ratio in
speed
We are a small company looking to put together the most cost effective
solution for our production database environment. Currently in
production Postgres 8.1 is running on this machine:
Dell 2850
2 x 3.0 Ghz Xeon 800Mhz FSB 2MB Cache
4 GB DDR2 400 Mhz
2 x 73 GB 10K SCSI RAID 1 (for xlog and OS)
Jeremy Haile wrote:
We are a small company looking to put together the most cost effective
solution for our production database environment. Currently in
production Postgres 8.1 is running on this machine:
Dell 2850
2 x 3.0 Ghz Xeon 800Mhz FSB 2MB Cache
4 GB DDR2 400 Mhz
2 x 73 GB 10K SCSI
Machine 1: $2000
Machine 2: $2000
Machine 3: $2000
Knowing how to rig them together and maintain them in a fully fault-
tolerant way: priceless.
(Sorry for the off-topic post, I couldn't resist).
-- Mark Lewis
On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 09:19 -0800, Craig A. James wrote:
Jeremy Haile wrote:
We
Jeremy Haile wrote:
We are a small company looking to put together the most cost effective
solution for our production database environment. Currently in
production Postgres 8.1 is running on this machine:
Dell 2850
2 x 3.0 Ghz Xeon 800Mhz FSB 2MB Cache
4 GB DDR2 400 Mhz
2 x 73 GB 10K SCSI
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Haile wrote:
We are a small company looking to put together the most cost effective
solution for our production database environment. Currently in
production Postgres 8.1 is running on this machine:
Dell 2850
2 x 3.0 Ghz Xeon 800Mhz
After takin a swig o' Arrakan spice grog, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joshua D. Drake)
belched out:
Jeremy Haile wrote:
We are a small company looking to put together the most cost effective
solution for our production database environment. Currently in
production Postgres 8.1 is running on this
On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 12:44, Christopher Browne wrote:
After takin a swig o' Arrakan spice grog, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joshua D.
Drake) belched out:
You should probably review the archives for PostgreSQL user
experience with Dell's before you purchase one.
Hear, hear! We found Dell
At 11:21 AM 2/15/2006, Jeremy Haile wrote:
We are a small company looking to put together the most cost effective
solution for our production database environment. Currently in
production Postgres 8.1 is running on this machine:
Dell 2850
2 x 3.0 Ghz Xeon 800Mhz FSB 2MB Cache
4 GB DDR2 400 Mhz
Jeremy Haile wrote:
Thanks for everyone's feedback. I will definitely take the hardware
comments into consideration when purchasing future hardware. I am
located in Atlanta, GA. If Dell has such a bad reputation with this
list, does anyone have good vendor recommendations?
I can
26 matches
Mail list logo
