Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs

From: Vivek Khera <vivek(at)khera(dot)org>
To: Pgsql performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs
Date: 2006-04-27 15:19:36
Message-ID: 28EEAFE6-22FA-4CC3-81BC-45E14CD530CA@khera.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Apr 25, 2006, at 5:09 PM, Ron Peacetree wrote:

> ...and even if you do buy Intel, =DON"T= buy Dell unless you like  
> causing trouble for yourself.
> Bad experiences with Dell in general and their poor PERC RAID  
> controllers in specific are all over this and other DB forums.

I don't think that their current controllers suck like their older  
ones did.  That's what you'll read about in the archives -- the old  
stuff.  Eg, the 1850's embedded RAID controller really flies, but it  
only works with the internal disks.  I can't comment on the external  
array controller for the 1850, but I cannot imagine it being any slower.

And personally, I've not experienced any major problems aside from  
two bad PE1550's 4 years ago.  And I have currently about 15 Dell  
servers running 24x7x365 doing various tasks, including postgres.

However, my *big* databases always go on dual opteron boxes.  my  
current favorite is the SunFire X4100 with an external RAID.


In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-04-27 16:13:26
Subject: Re: Firebird 1.5.3 X Postgresql 8.1.3 (linux Firebird 1.5.3 X Postgresql 8.1.3 (linux and and windows)]
Previous:From: Vivek KheraDate: 2006-04-27 15:11:42
Subject: Re: Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group