Re: Perc 3 DC

From: Glyn Astill <glynastill(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Perc 3 DC
Date: 2008-11-22 22:00:11
Message-ID: 686265.12234.qm@web23601.mail.ird.yahoo.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

--- On Sat, 22/11/08, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> I had an old workstation with a 4 port SATA card (no raid) running
> software raid and it handily stomps this 8 disk machine into the ground.

Yeah, I think this machine will be going that route.

> We had a bunch of 18xx series servers last company I was at
> (we went
> from unix / linux to Microsoft, so ordered some 400
> machines to
> replace a dozen or so unix machines)

I'm not surprised. We've just had some management "inserted" to make decisions like that for us. Honestly if I get asked one more time why we're not utilizing iSCSI or <insert buzzword here> more .... But that's another matter.

>
> I think as much as anything the busses on the dells are the
> problem,
> resulting in pretty poor throughput, especially true of the
> old
> serverworks chipset machines. Those things are pretty much
> boat
> anchors.

Funny that, possibly explains some of the useless supermicro hardware I had a while back.

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gregory Stark 2008-11-22 23:03:50 Re: seq scan over 3.3 million rows instead of single key index access
Previous Message Andrus 2008-11-22 19:33:28 seq scan over 3.3 million rows instead of single key index access