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
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 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,
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
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
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 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 10:40, 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
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
Hello all,
I have this small set of questions that i have been looking to ask and
here it comes.
Lets imagin we have a setup where we have multiple databases instances
on one server,
and we are starting to use more and more cross databases queries [query
unions] using dblink [multiple context but
Thanks for advises :-D.
Marcos
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
See the FAQ.
---
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 09:38:25AM -0500, Vivek Khera wrote:
> >
> > On Feb 22, 2006, at 10:44 PM, Chethana, Rao ((IE10)) wrote:
> >
> > >That is what I wanted to know, how do I tune
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
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
>
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:
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
23 matches
Mail list logo
