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

Re: Which processor runs better for Postgresql?

From: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: "Scott Marlowe" <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com>
Cc: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>,<steve(dot)poe(at)gmail(dot)com>,<pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Which processor runs better for Postgresql?
Date: 2006-06-14 20:00:57
Message-ID: E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E401388955@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Marlowe [mailto:smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com] 
> Sent: 14 June 2006 20:52
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Joshua D. Drake; steve(dot)poe(at)gmail(dot)com; 
> pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: RE: [PERFORM] Which processor runs better for Postgresql?
> 
> 
> Yeah, We've got a mix of 2650 and 2850s, and our 2850s have been rock
> solid stable, unlike the 2650s.  I was actually kinda surprised to see
> how many people have problems with the 2850s.
> 
> Apparently, the 2850 mobos have a built in RAID that's pretty stable
> (it's got a PERC number I can't remembeR), but ordering them 
> with an add
> on Perc RAID controller appears to make them somewhat 
> unstable as well.

That might be it - we always chose the onboard PERC because it has twice
the cache of the other options. 

Regards, Dave.

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-06-14 20:03:00
Subject: Re: Postgres consuming way too much memory???
Previous:From: Scott MarloweDate: 2006-06-14 19:52:06
Subject: Re: Which processor runs better for Postgresql?

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