Now if these vendors could somehow eliminate downtime due to human error
we'd be talking *serious* reliablity.
You mean making the OS smart enough to know when clearing the arp
cache is a bonehead operation, or just making the hardware smart
enough to realise that the keyswitch really
SS == Stalin Subbiah Subbiah writes:
SS We are looking into Sun V210 (2 x 1 GHz cpu, 2 gig ram, 5.8Os)
SS vs. Dell 1750 (2 x 2.4 GHz xeon, 2 gig ram, RH3.0). database will
SS mostly be write intensive and disks will be on raid 10. Wondering
SS if 64bit 1 GHz to 32bit 2.4 GHz make a big
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 04:05:45PM -0800, Subbiah, Stalin wrote:
being the key performance booster for postgres. what is the preferred OS
for postgres deployment if given an option between linux and solaris. As
One thing this very much depends on is what you're trying to do.
Suns have a
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andrew
Sullivan
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 9:37 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Benchmarking postgres on Solaris/Linux
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 04:05:45PM -0800, Subbiah, Stalin wrote:
being the key performance
]
Sent: Tue 3/23/2004 1:40 PM
To: 'Andrew Sullivan'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Cc:
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Benchmarking postgres on Solaris/Linux
We are looking into Sun V210 (2 x 1 GHz cpu, 2 gig ram, 5.8Os) vs. Dell 1750
(2 x 2.4 GHz xeon
'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Benchmarking postgres on Solaris/Linux
We are looking into Sun V210 (2 x 1 GHz cpu, 2 gig ram, 5.8Os) vs. Dell 1750
(2 x 2.4 GHz xeon, 2 gig ram, RH3.0). database will mostly be
write intensive and disks will be on raid 10. Wondering if 64bit
Matt, Stalin,
As for the compute intensive side (complex joins sorts etc), the Dell will
most likely beat the Sun by some distance, although
what the Sun lacks in CPU power it may make up a bit in memory bandwidth/
latency.
Personally, I've been unimpressed by Dell/Xeon; I think the Sun
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, Josh Berkus wrote:
Matt, Stalin,
As for the compute intensive side (complex joins sorts etc), the Dell will
most likely beat the Sun by some distance, although
what the Sun lacks in CPU power it may make up a bit in memory bandwidth/
latency.
Personally, I've
.
Thanks!
-Original Message-
From: Josh Berkus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 12:13 PM
To: Matt Clark; Subbiah, Stalin; 'Andrew Sullivan';
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Benchmarking postgres on Solaris/Linux
Matt, Stalin,
As for the compute
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 08:53:42PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is way down the priority list compared with IO throughput, stability,
manageability, support, etc etc.
Indeed, if our Suns actually diabled the broken hardware when they
died, fell over, and rebooted themselves, I'd certainly
';
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Benchmarking postgres on Solaris/Linux
Matt, Stalin,
As for the compute intensive side (complex joins sorts etc), the Dell
will
most likely beat the Sun by some distance, although
what the Sun lacks in CPU power it may make up a bit in memory
]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 3:42 PM
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Benchmarking postgres on Solaris/Linux
As anyone done performance benchmark testing with solaris sparc/intel
linux.
I once read a post here, which had benchmarking test results for using
different filesystem like xfs, ext3
Yep. Thanks Bill.
-Original Message-
From: Bill Moran [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 2:10 PM
To: Subbiah, Stalin
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Benchmarking postgres on Solaris/Linux
Subbiah, Stalin wrote:
As anyone done performance
13 matches
Mail list logo
