Jignesh,
Juan says the following below:
I figured the number of cores on the T1000/2000 processors would be
utilized by the forked copies of the postgresql server. From the comments
I have seen so far it does not look like this is the case.
I think this needs to be refuted. Doesn't Solaris
you'd be much better served by
putting a big NVRAM cache in front of a fast disk array
I agree with the point below, but I think price was the issue of the
original discussion. That said, it seems that a single high speed spindle
would give this a run for its money in both price and
exploring the option of buying 10 cheapass
machines for $300 each. At the moment, that $300 buys you, from Dell, a
2.5Ghz Pentium 4
Buy cheaper ass Dells with an AMD 64 3000+. Beats the crap out of the 2.5
GHz Pentium, especially for PostgreSQL.
See the thread Whence the Opterons for
I saw an interesting thought in another thread about placing database data
in a partition that uses cylinders at the outer edge of the disk. I want
to try this. Are the lower number cylinders closer to the edge of a SCSI
disk or is it the other way around? What about ATA?
Cheers,
Rick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/19/2005 11:10:22 AM:
What is 'multiple initiators' used for in the real world?
I asked this same question and got an answer off list: Somebody said their
SAN hardware used multiple initiators. I would try to check the archives
for you, but this thread is
Dave wrote An interesting test would be to stick several drives in a
cabinet and
graph how performance is affected at the different price points/
technologies/number of drives.
From the discussion on the $7k server thread, it seems the RAID controller
would
be an important data point also. And
This is a different thread that the $7k server thread.
Greg Stark started it and wrote:
I'm also wondering about whether I'm better off with one of these
SATA raid
Greg,
I posted this link under a different thread (the $7k server thread). It is
a very good read on why SCSI is better for servers than ATA. I didn't note
bias, though it is from a drive manufacturer. YMMV. There is an
interesting, though dated appendix on different manufacturers' drive
Nice research Alex.
Your data strongly support the information in the paper. Your SCSI drives
blew away the others in all of the server benchmarks. They're only
marginally better in desktop use.
I do find it somewhat amazing that a 15K SCSI 320 drive isn't going to help
me play Unreal
Another simple question: Why is SCSI more expensive? After the
eleventy-millionth controller is made, it seems like SCSI and SATA are
using a controller board and a spinning disk. Is somebody still making
money by licensing SCSI technology?
Rick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/06/2005 11:58:33
Yep, that's it, as well as increased quality control. I found this from
Seagate:
http://www.seagate.com/content/docs/pdf/whitepaper/D2c_More_than_Interface_ATA_vs_SCSI_042003.pdf
With this quote (note that ES stands for Enterprise System and PS stands
for Personal System):
There is
Steve Wampler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 03/30/2005 03:58:12 PM:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mohan, Ross wrote:
VOIP over BitTorrent?
Now *that* I want to see. Aught to be at least as interesting
as the TCP/IP over carrier pigeon experiment - and more
challenging to boot!
It
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 03/31/2005 10:48:09 AM:
Stefan Weiss wrote:
On 2005-03-31 15:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now *that* I want to see. Aught to be at least as interesting
as the TCP/IP over carrier pigeon experiment - and more
challenging to boot!
..
Interestingly, we
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 03/30/2005 10:58:21 AM:
Allow telecommute from across the pond and I might be interested :-)
Please post phone bills to this list.
--
Michael Fuhr
http://www.fuhr.org/~mfuhr/
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if
It was very challenging. I worked on the credit window sizing and
retransmission timer estimation algorithms. We took into account weather
patterns, size and age of the bird, feeding times, and the average number
of times a bird circles before determining magnetic north. Interestingly,
packet
this seems
like a dead waste of effort :-(. The work to put the data into the main
database isn't lessened at all; you've just added extra work to manage
the buffer database.
True from the view point of the server, but not from the throughput in the
client session (client viewpoint). The
I think maybe a SAN in conjunction with tablespaces might be the answer.
Still need one honking server.
Rick
Stephen Frost
Jim wrote: you'd be hard-pressed to find too many real-world examples where
you could do
something with a PostgreSQL procedural language that you couldn't do
with PL/SQL.
Rick mumbled: You can't get it for nothing! %)
In my younger days I denormalized a database for performance reasons and
have been paid for it dearly with increased maintenance costs. Adding
enhanced capabilities and new functionality will render denormalization
worse than useless quickly. --Rick
Andrew,
It seems that you could combine the subquery's WHERE clause with the main
query's to produce a simpler query, i.e. one without a subquery.
Rick
My basic question to the community is is PostgreSQL approximately as fast
as Oracle?
I don't want benchmarks, they're BS. I want a gut feel from this community
because I know many of you are in mixed shops that run both products, or
have had experience with both.
I fully intend to tune, vacuum,
21 matches
Mail list logo
