| From: | Christopher Weimann <cweimann(at)k12hq(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | alex(at)neteconomist(dot)com |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering |
| Date: | 2005-01-29 00:48:37 |
| Message-ID: | 20050129004837.GB2280@tektite.k12usa.internal |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 01/28/2005-05:57PM, Alex Turner wrote:
> >
> > Your system A has the absolute worst case Raid 5, 3 drives. The more
> > drives you add to Raid 5 the better it gets but it will never beat Raid
> > 10. On top of it being the worst case, pg_xlog is not on a separate
> > spindle.
> >
>
> True for writes, but not for reads.
>
Good point.
>
> My main point is that you can spend $7k on a server and believe you
> have a fast system. The person who bought the original system was
> under the delusion that it would make a good DB server. For the same
> $7k a different configuration can yield a vastly different performance
> output. This means that it's not quite apples to snow shovels.
That point is definatly made. I primarily wanted to point out that the
controlers involved were not the only difference.
In my experience with SQL servers of various flavors fast disks and
getting things onto a separate spindles is more important than just
about anything else. Depending on the size of your 'hot' dataset
RAM could be more important and CPU never is.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2005-01-29 07:30:14 | Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering |
| Previous Message | Alex Turner | 2005-01-28 22:57:11 | Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering |