| From: | Alan Stange <stange(at)rentec(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Luke Lonergan <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Joshua Marsh <icub3d(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases ( |
| Date: | 2005-11-18 19:39:50 |
| Message-ID: | 437E2E06.5070306@rentec.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Luke Lonergan wrote:
>> opterons from Sun that we got some time ago. I think the 130MB/s is
>> slow given the hardware, but it's acceptable. I'm not too price
>> sensitive; I care much more about reliability, uptime, etc.
>>
> I don't know what the system cost. It was part of block of dual
>
> Then I know what they cost - we have them too (V20z and V40z). You should
> be getting 400MB/s+ with external RAID.
Yes, but we don't. This is where I would normally begin a rant on how
craptacular Linux can be at times. But, for the sake of this
discussion, postgresql isn't reading the data any more slowly than does
any other program.
And we don't have the time to experiment with the box.
I know it should be better, but it's good enough for our purposes at
this time.
-- Alan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ron | 2005-11-18 20:29:11 | Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases |
| Previous Message | Alan Stange | 2005-11-18 19:39:30 | Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases ( |