On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 09:37:17 -0300,
Alvaro Nunes Melo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The server is a Dual Xeon 3.0 with 2 GB RAM and two SCSI disks. Our main
doubt is what is the best configuration for the disks. We are thinking
about use them in a RAID-0 array. Is this the best option?
Please keep replies copied to the list so that others may contribute to
and learn from the discussion.
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 10:15:13 -0300,
Alvaro Nunes Melo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Bruno,
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 09:37:17 -0300,
Alvaro Nunes Melo [EMAIL
At 08:37 AM 8/30/2005, Alvaro Nunes Melo wrote:
Hello,
We are about to install a new PostgreSQL server, and despite of
being a very humble configuration compared to the ones we see in the
list, it's the biggest one we've got till now.
The server is a Dual Xeon 3.0 with 2 GB RAM and two SCSI
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 09:37:17 -0300,
Alvaro Nunes Melo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The server is a Dual Xeon 3.0 with 2 GB RAM and two SCSI disks. Our main
doubt is what is the best configuration for the disks. We are thinking
about use them in a RAID-0 array. Is this the best option?
Ron wrote:
At 08:37 AM 8/30/2005, Alvaro Nunes Melo wrote:
Hello,
We are about to install a new PostgreSQL server, and despite of being
a very humble configuration compared to the ones we see in the list,
it's the biggest one we've got till now.
The server is a Dual Xeon 3.0 with 2 GB
At 12:56 PM 8/30/2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Ron wrote:
At 08:37 AM 8/30/2005, Alvaro Nunes Melo wrote:
Hello,
We are about to install a new PostgreSQL server, and despite of
being a very humble configuration compared to the ones we see in
the list, it's the biggest one we've got till
On 8/30/05, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you still have the budget, I would suggest considering either
what Ron suggested or possibly using a 4 drive RAID 10 instead.
IME, with only 4 HDs, it's usually better to split them them into two
RAID 1's (one for the db, one for everything else
If you still have the budget, I would suggest considering either what
Ron suggested or possibly using a 4 drive RAID 10 instead.
IME, with only 4 HDs, it's usually better to split them them into two
RAID 1's (one for the db, one for everything else including the logs)
than it is to put
At 03:27 PM 8/30/2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
If you still have the budget, I would suggest considering either
what Ron suggested or possibly using a 4 drive RAID 10 instead.
IME, with only 4 HDs, it's usually better to split them them into
two RAID 1's (one for the db, one for everything
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 07:02:28PM -0400, Ron wrote:
purpose(s). That's why the TPC bench marked systems tend to have
literally 100's of HD's and they tend to be split into very focused
purposes.
Of course, TPC benchmark systems are constructed such that cost and
storage capacity are
At 08:04 PM 8/30/2005, Michael Stone wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 07:02:28PM -0400, Ron wrote:
purpose(s). That's why the TPC bench marked systems tend to have
literally 100's of HD's and they tend to be split into very focused purposes.
Of course, TPC benchmark systems are constructed
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 08:41:40PM -0400, Ron wrote:
The scary thing is that I've worked on RW production systems that
bore a striking resemblance to a TPC benchmark system. As you can
imagine, they uniformly belonged to BIG organizations (read: lot's 'o
$$$) who were using the systems for
At 08:43 PM 8/30/2005, Michael Stone wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 08:41:40PM -0400, Ron wrote:
The scary thing is that I've worked on RW production systems that
bore a striking resemblance to a TPC benchmark system. As you can
imagine, they uniformly belonged to BIG organizations (read:
13 matches
Mail list logo
