Re: UltraSPARC versus AMD

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org]On Behalf Of Brent Wood
> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 8:20 PM
> To: Uwe C. Schroeder
> Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] UltraSPARC versus AMD
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2005, Uwe C. Schroeder wrote:
>
> > Well, you overlook one thing there. SUN has always has a
> really good I/O
> > performance - something far from negligible for a database
> application.

Am i dreaming?,
Solaris really good I/O performance?

Have your heard of slowlaris?

May be you mean hardware performance, combined with a great OS (BSD or
Linux)

I had to "upgrade" many Sunfire 280 (running slowlaris [8|9]) to BSD because
of poor DB performance, after the upgrade, all run flawlessly.
I only wish a had made this switch before
Just my $0.02

> > A lot of the PC systems lack that kind of I/O thruput.
> > Just compare a simple P4 with ATAPI drives to the same P4
> with 320 SCSI drives
> > - the speed difference, particularly using any *nix, is surprisingly
> > significant and easily visible with the bare eye.

We are talking about server or pc?, we run postgres on several HP dl380 (5i
SCSI controller) with great performance

> > There is a reason why a lot of the financial/insurance
> institutions (having a
> > lot of transactions in their DB applications) use either
> IBM mainframes or
> > SUN E10k's :-)
> > Personally I think a weaker processor with top of the line
> I/O will perform
> > better for DB apps than the fastest processor with crappy I/O.
> >
> > i guess the "my $0.02" is in order here :-)
> >
>

i totally agree with this
---
Miguel