From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | Vivek Khera <khera(at)kcilink(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Hardware purchase question |
Date: | 2004-12-13 18:31:40 |
Message-ID: | 200412131031.40303.josh@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Vivek,
> Dual Xeon 64bit with built-in 6-disk RAID10 or RAID5 (LSI RAID card)
> Dual Opteron 64bit with built-in 6-disk RAID10 or RAID5 (LSI RAID card)
> Dual Opteron 64bit with external RAID via fibre channel (eg, nstor)
Opteron over Xeon, no question. Not only are the Opterons
real-world-faster, they are less severely affected by the CS bug.
> I'm sure any of these will whip the bottom off the Dell 2650, but
> which will be the fastest overall? No way to know without spending
> lots of money to test. :-(
The SAN is going to be faster with a good SAN. That being said, I understand
that "a good SAN" is something like a $30,000 NetApp; the less expensive
SANs/NASes don't seem to be more than an external drive enclosure with a raid
chip (e.g. Apple XRaid). But we saw even a less expensive/slower EMC
machine improve performance just moving the pg_xlog off of the local PERC
RAID 5 and onto the SAN. So this is probably a good way to go if you can
afford it.
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | sarlav kumar | 2004-12-13 18:33:08 | Re: INSERT question |
Previous Message | sarlav kumar | 2004-12-13 18:31:13 | Re: INSERT question |