| From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tore Halset <halset(at)pvv(dot)ntnu(dot)no> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: dell versus hp |
| Date: | 2007-11-06 15:18:51 |
| Message-ID: | 200711061618.54240.dfontaine@hi-media.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Le mardi 06 novembre 2007, Tore Halset a écrit :
> Interesting. Do you have any benchmarking numbers? Did you test with
> software raid 10 as well?
Just some basic pg_restore figures, which only make sense (for me anyway) when
compared to restoring same data on other machines, and to show the effect of
having a dedicated array for the WALs (fsync off not having that an influence
on the pg_restore timing)...
The previous production server had a RAM default and made us switch without
taking the time for all the tests we could have run on the new "beast".
Regards,
--
dim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Smith | 2007-11-06 18:10:10 | Re: dell versus hp |
| Previous Message | Tore Halset | 2007-11-06 14:15:39 | Re: dell versus hp |