On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 1:53 AM, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> wrote:
> As far as the other more powerful machines you mentioned go, would need to
> know a bit more about the disks and disk controller in there to comment
> about whether those are worth the trouble to integrate. The big missing
> piece of community hardware that remains elusive would be a system with
Here we go:
- a couple of 1750 servers: dual Xeon 2.8 boxes with PERC 4/DI, 2
internal disks, from 2 to 3 GB of RAM, we can probably get one of them
up to 4 GB if needed
- a PV 220 S disk array with: 4 x 36 GB + 5 x 73 GB. I think I can get
8 identical disks in the box by switching the 73 GB disks with the 36
GB ones from the other boxes but I'm not sure we can make only one
RAID array from the 2 parts of the PV 220 S.
- one of the above boxes also has a PERC 4/DC and is connected to the
- a 6650 box: quad Xeon MP 2.2 with 4 GB: it has 2 internal disks and
an external attachment to the disk array.
All the disks are 10k rpm.
What I was thinking about is that it can be useful to have several
boxes connected to validate features too, not only performances (who
says read access to a warm standby?).
Note that if we don't find any good usage for them, it won't be a
problem to affect them to our internal test platform.
If everything goes well, we plan to buy a big box for internal
PostgreSQL benchmarking and testing. It's obvious we won't use it
night and day so I may be able to provide windows of time when the
community can use it.
This one is hypothetical though, the other ones are real and dedicated
to community usage (yeah, it wasn't an April's fool).
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Dimitri Fontaine||Date: 2008-04-02 10:33:56|
|Subject: Re: GiST opclass and varlena|
|Previous:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2008-04-02 09:32:30|
|Subject: Re: [GENERAL] SHA1 on postgres 8.3|