Re: Hardware

From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Hardware
Date: 2007-02-06 16:14:39
Message-ID: 20070206161438.GD26733@phlogiston.dyndns.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 10:59:21AM -0500, Walter Vaughan wrote:
>
> Is this still true in regards to Xeon's? I was looking at a server with
> Quad Core Xeon 2 5335 @ 2.0GHz.

Multi-core Xeons are not as affected, and are somewhat different
"under the hood". So no, you're probably ok there.

> Are RAID 1 or 1+0 or 0+1 equal in speed, performance, downtime in regards
> to postgresql. Is it a coin toss?

Well, 1 isn't equivalent to 1+0 or 0+1 in terms of capacity, because
it's a straight mirror of two drives. I hate 0+1, because you lose
half the array in the event any disk in the side fails. So I always
use 1+0 if I can.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
The plural of anecdote is not data.
--Roger Brinner

In response to

  • Hardware at 2007-02-06 15:59:21 from Walter Vaughan

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Guido Neitzer 2007-02-06 16:17:47 Re: Hardware
Previous Message Jim Nasby 2007-02-06 16:09:17 Re: PostgreSQL on Solaris: Changing Compilers During Point Upgrade