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

Re: which dual-CPU hardware/OS is fastest for PostgreSQL?

From: Steve Poe <spoe(at)sfnet(dot)cc>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: Merlin Moncure <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com>,alex(at)neteconomist(dot)com, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: which dual-CPU hardware/OS is fastest for PostgreSQL?
Date: 2005-03-28 12:11:59
Message-ID: 4247F48F.8090308@sfnet.cc (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Greg Stark wrote:

>"Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> writes:
>
>  
>
>>Alex wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Without starting too much controvesy I hope, I would seriously
>>>recommend you evaluate the AMCC Escalade 9500S SATA controller.  
>>>      
>>>
>.
>  
>
>>At the risk of shaming myself with another 'me too' post, I'd like to
>>say that my experiences back this up 100%.  The Escalade controllers are
>>excellent and the Raptor drives are fast and reliable (so far).  
>>    
>>
>.
>
>I assume AMCC == 3ware now?
>
>Has anyone verified that fsync is safe on these controllers? Ie, that they
>aren't caching writes and "lying" about the write completing like IDE
>drives oft
>  
>

For those who speak highly of the Escalade controllers and/Raptor SATA 
drives, how is the database being utilized, OLTP or primarily read 
access? This is good information I am learning, but I also see the need 
to understand the context of how the hardware is being used.

Steve Poe


In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Hannes DorbathDate: 2005-03-28 14:14:44
Subject: Re: Query Optimizer Failure / Possible Bug
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2005-03-28 10:21:03
Subject: Re: Delete query takes exorbitant amount of time

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