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 on
At 01:22 AM 2/25/2006, Luke Lonergan wrote:
Mark,
On 2/24/06 10:10 PM, "Mark Kirkwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, since this is always fun (2G memory, 3Ware 7506, 4xPATA), writing:
>
> $ dd if=/dev/zero of=/data0/dump/bigfile bs=8k count=50
> 50 records in
> 50 records out
>
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
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 versus
Mark,
On 2/24/06 10:10 PM, "Mark Kirkwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, since this is always fun (2G memory, 3Ware 7506, 4xPATA), writing:
>
> $ dd if=/dev/zero of=/data0/dump/bigfile bs=8k count=50
> 50 records in
> 50 records out
> 409600 bytes transferred in 32.619208 se
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
>
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 ha
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 th
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 on
Luke Lonergan wrote:
I'd be more shocked if this weren't also true of nearly all SCSI HW RAID
adapters of this era. If you had ordered an HP DL380 server you'd get about
the same performance.
BTW - I don't think there's anything reasonable about 50-55 MB/s from 6
disks, I'd put the minimum fo
Do you have a hw reference that runs that fast (5 x 30 = 150MB/s) ?
Luke Lonergan a écrit :
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 SC
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
On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 17:12, Craig A. James wrote:
> 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
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 X
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 adverti
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 we
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 18
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 o
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 commodity hardware, and
often does so even when performance
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 demon
Bruce,
On 2/24/06 6:29 AM, "Bruce Momjian" wrote:
> Christopher Browne wrote:
>> After takin a swig o' Arrakan spice grog, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Joshua D.
>> Drake") belched out:
Always more fun to read drunken posts :-)
Dell 2850
2 x 3.0 Ghz Xeon 800Mhz FSB 2MB Cache
4 GB DDR2 40
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
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
> >> p
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 recomme
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?
Although most of the responses were ha
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
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 De
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 t
"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
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 RAID
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:
> > W
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 RAID
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)
4
33 matches
Mail list logo
