Andrew Hammond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My goal is to tune the disk / filesystem on our prototype system. It's
> an EMC disk array, so sectors on disk are 512 bytes of usable space.
> We've decided to go with RAID 10 since the goal is to maximize
> performance. Currently the raid element siz
> Rod Taylor wrote:
> | I've used both a NetApp and Hitachi based SANs with PostgreSQL. Both
> | work as well as expected, but do require some tweeking as they normally
> | are not optimized for the datablock size that PostgreSQL likes to deal
> | with (8k by default) -- this can make as much as a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Rod Taylor wrote:
| I've used both a NetApp and Hitachi based SANs with PostgreSQL. Both
| work as well as expected, but do require some tweeking as they normally
| are not optimized for the datablock size that PostgreSQL likes to deal
| with (8k by def
> Would NAS or SAN be good solutions ? (I've read that NAS uses NFS
> which could slow down the transfer rate ??)
> Has anyone ever tried one of these with postgresql ?
I've used both a NetApp and Hitachi based SANs with PostgreSQL. Both
work as well as expected, but do require some tweeking as t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would NAS or SAN be good solutions ? (I've read that NAS uses NFS which
could slow down the transfer rate ??)
Has anyone ever tried one of these with postgresql ?
Not (yet) with Postgres, but my company has run ~100GB Oracle database
on NAS (NetApp) for the past couple
>
> Oh, and not to forget - the price for a 3ware 9500S-12, the version
> we're testing ranges between EUR1000 and EUR1500, depending on the
> contract you have with the reseller and the intended use of the
> device. SATA disks are dirt-cheap nowadays, as has been mentioned
> before.
>
Correctio
...and on Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:52:56AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] used the keyboard:
> Hi all,
>
> I've been searching the list for a while but couldn't find any up-to-date
> information relating to my problem.
> We have a production server with postgresql on cygwin that currently deels
> with
s soon as it is released.
Regards,
Benjamin.
Mark Kirkwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20/07/2004 12:04
Pour : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : Re: Réf. : Re: [PERFORM] NAS, SAN or any alternate solution ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED
s.
Thanks again.
Benjamin.
"Scott Marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Envoyé par : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
20/07/2004 10:20
Pour : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : Re: [PERFORM] NAS, SAN or any alternate solution ?
O
On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 01:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've been searching the list for a while but couldn't find any
> up-to-date information relating to my problem.
> We have a production server with postgresql on cygwin that currently
> deels with about 200 Gigs of data (1 big IDE
10 matches
Mail list logo
