Re: suggestions for postgresql setup on Dell 2950 , PERC6i controller

From: justin <justin(at)emproshunts(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Matt Burke <mattblists(at)icritical(dot)com>, glynastill(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)uk, Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: suggestions for postgresql setup on Dell 2950 , PERC6i controller
Date: 2009-02-06 16:05:42
Message-ID: 498C5FD6.1060608@emproshunts.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Bruce Momjian wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:200902061527(dot)n16FREp25859(at)momjian(dot)us" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Matt Burke wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
we'd have no choice other than replacing the server+shelf+disks.

I want to see just how much better a high-end Areca/Adaptec controller
is, but I just don't think I can get approval for a ?1000 card "because
some guy on the internet said the PERC sucks". Would that same person
say it sucked if it came in Areca packaging? Am I listening to the
advice of a professional, or a fanboy?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
The experiences I have heard is that Dell looks at server hardware in
the same way they look at their consumer gear, "If I put in a cheaper
part, how much will it cost Dell to warranty replace it". Sorry, but I
don't look at my performance or downtime in the same way Dell does. ;-)
</pre>
</blockquote>
It always boils down to money.&nbsp; To communicate to the ones controlling
the purse strings talk dollar bills.&nbsp; To get what one wants from the
purse string holders give examples like this. <br>
Buying cheap hardware can result in a complete shut down resulting in
lost sales and/or non productive labor being spent.&nbsp; <br>
<br>
Example would be a company generates 100 sales orders an hour average
$100 = $10,000 if the server is down for 8 hours 1 business day thats
$80,000 lost in business.&nbsp; now lets throw in labor average hourly rate
lets say $15.00 an hour for 10 people = $150.00 for 8 hours = $1200 in
lost labor.&nbsp; Now throw in overtime to get caught up&nbsp; $1800&nbsp; total labor
cost&nbsp; = $3000<br>
<br>
The $200 to $300 saved on the card&nbsp; was a good decision :-(<br>
<br>
Now the argument can be made hardware failures are low so that goes out
the door<br>
<br>
Your next best argument is showing the waste in lost productivity.&nbsp;
Lets say&nbsp; because of the cheap hardware purchased the users must sit
idle&nbsp; 3 seconds per transactions&nbsp; times 100 transactions per day = 300
seconds lost X 10 people = 3000 Seconds per day X 235 working days&nbsp; =
705000/60/60 = 196 hours lost per year&nbsp; times 3years for average life
span of the server = 588 hours X&nbsp; average pay rate $15 = $8820.00 lost
labor<br>
<br>
Again smart thinking.&nbsp; <br>
<br>
There are all kind of ways to win these arguments to push for higher
quality hardware.
</body>
</html>

Attachment Content-Type Size
unknown_filename text/html 2.6 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-02-06 16:14:32 Re: Postgres not willing to use an index?
Previous Message Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz 2009-02-06 15:55:03 Re: Postgres not willing to use an index?