Re: [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Benchmarking postgres on Solaris/Linux

2004-03-24 Thread Matt Clark
  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 shouldn't be turned
 while 40 people are logged in?  (Either way, I agree this'd be an
 improvement.  It'd sure make colocation a lot less painful.)

Well I was joking really, but those are two very good examples!  Yes, machines should 
require extra confirmation for operations like
those.  Hell, even a simple 'init 0' would be well served by a prompt that says There 
are currently 400 network sockets open, 50
remote users logged in, and 25 disk IOs per second.  What's more, there's nobody 
logged in at the console to boot me up again
afterwards - are you _sure_ you want to shut the machine down?.  It's also crazy that 
there's no prompt after an 'rm -rf' (we could
have 'rm -rf --iacceptfullresponsibility' for an unprompted version).

Stuff like that would have saved me from a few embarrassments in the past for sure ;-)

It drives me absolutely nuts every time I see a $staggeringly_expensive clustered 
server whose sysadmins are scared to do a failover
test in case something goes wrong!  Or which has worse uptime than my desktop PC 
because the cluster software's poorly set up or
administered.  Or which has both machines on the same circuit breaker.  I could go on 
but it's depressing me.

Favourite anecdote:  A project manager friend of mine had a new 'lights out' 
datacenter to set up.  The engineers, admins and
operators swore blind that everything had been tested in every possible way, and that 
incredible uptime was guaranteed.  'So if I
just pull this disk out everything will keep working?' he asked, and then pulled the 
disk out without waiting for an answer...

Ever since he told me that story I've done exactly that with every piece of so-called 
'redundant' hardware a vendor tries to flog
me.  Ask them to set it up, then just do nasty things to it without asking for 
permission.  Less than half the gear makes it through
that filter, and actually you can almost tell from the look on the technical sales 
rep's face as you reach for the
drive/cable/card/whatever whether it will or won't.

M






---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
  subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
  message can get through to the mailing list cleanly


Re: [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Benchmarking postgres on Solaris/Linux

2004-03-24 Thread Vivek Khera
 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 difference here.

Spend all your money speeding up your disk system.  If you're mostly
writing (like my main app) then that's your bottleneck.  I use a dell
2650 with external RAID 5 on 14 spindles.  I didn't need that much
disk space, but went for  maxing out the number of spindles.  RAID 5
was faster than RAID10 or RAID50 with this configuration for me.


-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vivek Khera, Ph.D.Khera Communications, Inc.
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]   Rockville, MD  +1-301-869-4449 x806
AIM: vivekkhera Y!: vivek_khera   http://www.khera.org/~vivek/

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster


Re: [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Benchmarking postgres on Solaris/Linux

2004-03-23 Thread Andrew Sullivan
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 reputation for greater reliability.  While my own
experience with Sun hardware has been rather shy of sterling, I _can_
say that it stands head and shoulders above a lot of the x86 gear you
can get.

If you're planning to use Solaris on x86, don't bother.  Solaris is a
slow, bloated pig compared to Linux, at least when it comes to
managing the largish number of processes that Postgres requires.

If pure speed is what you're after, I have found that 2-way, 32 bit
Linux on P-IIIs compares very favourably to 4 way 64 bit Ultra SPARC
IIs.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan  | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The fact that technology doesn't work is no bar to success in the marketplace.
--Philip Greenspun

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])


Re: [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Benchmarking postgres on Solaris/Linux

2004-03-23 Thread Subbiah, Stalin
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 1 GHz to
32bit 2.4 GHz make a big difference here. 

Thanks!

-Original Message-
From: [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 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 reputation for greater reliability.  While my own
experience with Sun hardware has been rather shy of sterling, I _can_
say that it stands head and shoulders above a lot of the x86 gear you
can get.

If you're planning to use Solaris on x86, don't bother.  Solaris is a
slow, bloated pig compared to Linux, at least when it comes to
managing the largish number of processes that Postgres requires.

If pure speed is what you're after, I have found that 2-way, 32 bit
Linux on P-IIIs compares very favourably to 4 way 64 bit Ultra SPARC
IIs.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan  | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The fact that technology doesn't work is no bar to success in the
marketplace.
--Philip Greenspun

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
  joining column's datatypes do not match


Re: [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Benchmarking postgres on Solaris/Linux

2004-03-23 Thread Anjan Dave
What bus speeds?
 
533MHz on the 32-bit Intel will give you about 4.2Gbps of IO throughput...
 
I think the Sun will be 150MHz, 64bit is 2.4Gbps of IO. Correct me if i am wrong.
 
Thanks,
Anjan

-Original Message- 
From: Subbiah, Stalin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
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, 2 gig ram, RH3.0). database will mostly be
write intensive and disks will be on raid 10. Wondering if 64bit 1 GHz to
32bit 2.4 GHz make a big difference here.

Thanks!

-Original Message-
From: [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 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 reputation for greater reliability.  While my own
experience with Sun hardware has been rather shy of sterling, I _can_
say that it stands head and shoulders above a lot of the x86 gear you
can get.

If you're planning to use Solaris on x86, don't bother.  Solaris is a
slow, bloated pig compared to Linux, at least when it comes to
managing the largish number of processes that Postgres requires.

If pure speed is what you're after, I have found that 2-way, 32 bit
Linux on P-IIIs compares very favourably to 4 way 64 bit Ultra SPARC
IIs.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan  | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The fact that technology doesn't work is no bar to success in the
marketplace.
--Philip Greenspun

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
  joining column's datatypes do not match



---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster


Re: [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Benchmarking postgres on Solaris/Linux

2004-03-23 Thread Matt Clark
If it's going to be write intensive then the RAID controller will be the most 
important thing.  A dual p3/500 with a write-back
cache will smoke either of the boxes you mention using software RAID on write 
performance.

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.

Matt

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Subbiah,
 Stalin
 Sent: 23 March 2004 18:41
 To: 'Andrew Sullivan'; '[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 1 GHz to
 32bit 2.4 GHz make a big difference here.

 Thanks!

 -Original Message-
 From: [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 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 reputation for greater reliability.  While my own
 experience with Sun hardware has been rather shy of sterling, I _can_
 say that it stands head and shoulders above a lot of the x86 gear you
 can get.

 If you're planning to use Solaris on x86, don't bother.  Solaris is a
 slow, bloated pig compared to Linux, at least when it comes to
 managing the largish number of processes that Postgres requires.

 If pure speed is what you're after, I have found that 2-way, 32 bit
 Linux on P-IIIs compares very favourably to 4 way 64 bit Ultra SPARC
 IIs.

 A

 --
 Andrew Sullivan  | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 The fact that technology doesn't work is no bar to success in the
 marketplace.
   --Philip Greenspun

 ---(end of broadcast)---
 TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
 (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])

 ---(end of broadcast)---
 TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
   joining column's datatypes do not match




---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings


Re: [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Benchmarking postgres on Solaris/Linux

2004-03-23 Thread Josh Berkus
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 might do 
better than you think, comparitively.On all the Dell servers I've used so 
far, I've not seen performance that comes even close to the hardware specs.

-- 
-Josh Berkus
 Aglio Database Solutions
 San Francisco


---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

   http://archives.postgresql.org


Re: [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Benchmarking postgres on Solaris/Linux

2004-03-23 Thread scott.marlowe
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 been unimpressed by Dell/Xeon; I think the Sun might do 
 better than you think, comparitively.On all the Dell servers I've used so 
 far, I've not seen performance that comes even close to the hardware specs.

We use a 2600 at work (dual 2.8GHz) with the LSI/Megaraid based battery 
backed caching controller, and it flies.  Truly flies.

It's not Dell that's so slow, it's the default adaptec RAID controller or 
IDE drives that are slow.  Ours has 533 MHz memory bus, by the way.


---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Benchmarking postgres on Solaris/Linux

2004-03-23 Thread matt
 Personally, I've been unimpressed by Dell/Xeon; I think the Sun might do
 better than you think, comparitively.On all the Dell servers I've used
 so
 far, I've not seen performance that comes even close to the hardware
 specs.

It's true that any difference will be far less than the GHz ratio, and I
can't really speak for Dell servers in general, but a pair of 2.4GHz Xeons
in a Dell workstation gets about 23 SPECint_rate2000, and a pair of 1GHz
UltraSparc IIIs in a SunFire V210 gets 10.  The ratios are the same for
other non-FP benchmarks.

Now the Suns do have some architectural advantages, and they used to have
far superior memory bandwidth than intel boxes, and they often still do
for more than 2 cpus, and definitely do for more than four.  But my
personal experience is that for 4 cpus or less the entry level UNIX
offerings from Sun/IBM/HP fell behind in raw performance (FP excepted) two
or three years ago.  The posh hardware's an entirely different matter of
course.

On the other hand, I can think of innumerable non performance related
reasons to buy a 'real UNIX box' as a low end DB server.  CPU performance
is way down the priority list compared with IO throughput, stability,
manageability, support, etc etc.

Given that the original question was about a very heavily write-oriented
environment, I'd take the Sun every day of the week, assuming that those
compile option changes have sorted out the oddly slow PG performance at
last.

M

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])


Re: [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Benchmarking postgres on Solaris/Linux

2004-03-23 Thread Subbiah, Stalin
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, ext2, ufs etc. i couldn't find that
link anymore and google is failing on me, so anyone have the link handy.

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 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 might do 
better than you think, comparitively.On all the Dell servers I've used
so 
far, I've not seen performance that comes even close to the hardware specs.

-- 
-Josh Berkus
 Aglio Database Solutions
 San Francisco

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend


Re: [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Benchmarking postgres on Solaris/Linux

2004-03-23 Thread Craig Thomas
On Tue, 2004-03-23 at 12:42, Subbiah, Stalin wrote:
 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, ext2, ufs etc. i couldn't find that
 link anymore and google is failing on me, so anyone have the link handy.
 
 Thanks!

This link: http://developer.osdl.org/markw/ takes you to Mark Wong's
database developer page.  The top set of links shows performance results
for Linux kernels running an OLTP workload (dbt-2) under PostgreSQL.  He
has numbers for ia32 and ia64 under different file system types.

To do a good enough comparison, one would need to port this test kit
to solaris.  So far, this kit is only running on Linux. No one, to my
knowledge has it running on any other platform.  But I suspect there are
some working to port the kits.

 
 -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 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 might do 
 better than you think, comparitively.On all the Dell servers I've used
 so 
 far, I've not seen performance that comes even close to the hardware specs.


---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster


Re: [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Benchmarking postgres on Solaris/Linux

2004-03-23 Thread Andrew Sullivan
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 praise them
to heaven.  But I have to say that the really very good reporting of
failing memory has saved me some headaches.  

 environment, I'd take the Sun every day of the week, assuming that those
 compile option changes have sorted out the oddly slow PG performance at
 last.

I seem to have hit a bad batch of Dell hardware recently, which makes
me second this opinion.

I should say, also, that my initial experience of AIX has been
extremely good.  I can't comment on the fun it might involve in the
long haul, of course.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan  | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This work was visionary and imaginative, and goes to show that visionary
and imaginative work need not end up well. 
--Dennis Ritchie

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

   http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html


Re: [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Benchmarking postgres on Solaris/Linux

2004-03-23 Thread Bill Moran
Subbiah, Stalin wrote:
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, ext2, ufs etc. i couldn't find that
link anymore and google is failing on me, so anyone have the link handy.
If you're talking about the work I did, it's here:
http://www.potentialtech.com/wmoran/ (then follow the link)
Anyway, that should be easily portable to any platform that will run Postgres,
but I don't know how useful it is in comparing two different platforms.  See
the information in the document.  It was intended only to test disk access speed,
and attempts to flood the HDD system with database work to do.
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 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 might do 
better than you think, comparitively.On all the Dell servers I've used
so 
far, I've not seen performance that comes even close to the hardware specs.



--
Bill Moran
Potential Technologies
http://www.potentialtech.com
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend


Re: [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Benchmarking postgres on Solaris/Linux

2004-03-23 Thread Aaron Werman
Are you talking about
http://www.potentialtech.com/wmoran/postgresql.php#conclusion
- Original Message - 
From: Subbiah, Stalin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Matt Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Subbiah, Stalin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Andrew Sullivan' [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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, ext2, ufs etc. i couldn't find that
 link anymore and google is failing on me, so anyone have the link handy.

 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 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 might do
 better than you think, comparitively.On all the Dell servers I've used
 so
 far, I've not seen performance that comes even close to the hardware
specs.

 -- 
 -Josh Berkus
  Aglio Database Solutions
  San Francisco

 ---(end of broadcast)---
 TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend


---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])


Re: [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Benchmarking postgres on Solaris/Linux

2004-03-23 Thread Subbiah, Stalin
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 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, ext2, ufs etc. i couldn't find that
 link anymore and google is failing on me, so anyone have the link handy.

If you're talking about the work I did, it's here:
http://www.potentialtech.com/wmoran/ (then follow the link)

Anyway, that should be easily portable to any platform that will run
Postgres,
but I don't know how useful it is in comparing two different platforms.  See
the information in the document.  It was intended only to test disk access
speed,
and attempts to flood the HDD system with database work to do.

 
 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 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 might do 
 better than you think, comparitively.On all the Dell servers I've used
 so 
 far, I've not seen performance that comes even close to the hardware
specs.
 


-- 
Bill Moran
Potential Technologies
http://www.potentialtech.com

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
  subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
  message can get through to the mailing list cleanly


Re: [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Benchmarking postgres on Solaris/Linux

2004-03-23 Thread matt
 Indeed, if our Suns actually diabled the broken hardware when they
 died, fell over, and rebooted themselves, I'd certainly praise them
 to heaven.  But I have to say that the really very good reporting of
 failing memory has saved me some headaches.

Ha!  Yes, it would seem the obvious thing to do - but as you say, at least
you get told what borked and may even be able to remove it without
stopping the machine.  Sometimes.  Or at least you get a nice lunch from
your Sun reseller.

 I should say, also, that my initial experience of AIX has been
 extremely good.  I can't comment on the fun it might involve in the
 long haul, of course.

The current crop of power4+ boxen is reputed to even be able to recover
from a failed CPU without a restart.  Not *always* one imagines, but
usefully often enough for the banking mob to get sweaty over the feature. 
More importantly though, IBM seems committed to supporting all this
goodness under Linux too  (though not BSD I fear - sorry Bruce)

Now if these vendors could somehow eliminate downtime due to human error
we'd be talking *serious* reliablity.

M

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend