| From: | "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Craig A(dot) James" <cjames(at)modgraph-usa(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Reliability recommendations |
| Date: | 2006-02-25 00:06:57 |
| Message-ID: | C024DFA1.1DC2D%llonergan@greenplum.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Joshua,
On 2/24/06 9:19 AM, "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> This machine... if you run it in raid 5 will only get 7-9 megabytes a
> second READ! performance. That is with 6 SCSI drives.
> If you run it in RAID 10 you get a more reasonable 50-55 megabytes per
> second.
>
> I don't have it sitting in front of me or I would give you an exact
> model number.
>
> This machine also uses the serverworks chipset which is known to be a
> catastrophe.
I'd be more shocked if this weren't also true of nearly all SCSI HW RAID
adapters of this era. If you had ordered an HP DL380 server you'd get about
the same performance.
BTW - I don't think there's anything reasonable about 50-55 MB/s from 6
disks, I'd put the minimum for this era machine at 5 x 30 = 150MB/s.
- Luke
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Philippe Marzin | 2006-02-25 00:18:52 | Re: Reliability recommendations |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2006-02-24 23:59:14 | Re: Reliability recommendations |