| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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
| 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 |