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.
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 |