Re: UltraSPARC versus AMD - Slowaris

Richly deserved IMNSHO. my current employer was bilked for many many months
for a piece of crap E10K that barely outperforms a couple of AMD chips. But
at many, many times the price. We finally upgraded/migrated to AIX/g5 chips
and run what was run on 20 cpus on 2.

If Sun pulls out of its slow Icarus dive to near-certain death, it'll be
a miracle. ( And, I guess, that'd be "a good thing"; always nice to have a
miracle. )

-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org [mailto:pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Richard_D_Levine(at)raytheon(dot)com
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 3:12 PM
To: mmiranda(at)americatel(dot)com(dot)sv
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org; pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] UltraSPARC versus AMD

Sun's stock was at $65.00 in late 2000 and has rocketed to $3.50. I think somebody else besides us noticed too.

pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org wrote on 04/26/2005 01:12:49 PM:

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> > [mailto:pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org]On Behalf Of Brent Wood
> > Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 8:20 PM
> > To: Uwe C. Schroeder
> > Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] UltraSPARC versus AMD
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 23 Apr 2005, Uwe C. Schroeder wrote:
> >
> > > Well, you overlook one thing there. SUN has always has a
> > really good I/O
> > > performance - something far from negligible for a database
> > application.
>
> Am i dreaming?,
> Solaris really good I/O performance?
>
> Have your heard of slowlaris?
>
> May be you mean hardware performance, combined with a great OS (BSD
> or
> Linux)
>
> I had to "upgrade" many Sunfire 280 (running slowlaris [8|9]) to BSD
because
> of poor DB performance, after the upgrade, all run flawlessly. I only
> wish a had made this switch before Just my $0.02
>
>
> > > A lot of the PC systems lack that kind of I/O thruput. Just
> > > compare a simple P4 with ATAPI drives to the same P4
> > with 320 SCSI drives
> > > - the speed difference, particularly using any *nix, is
> > > surprisingly significant and easily visible with the bare eye.
>
> We are talking about server or pc?, we run postgres on several HP
> dl380
(5i
> SCSI controller) with great performance
>
> > > There is a reason why a lot of the financial/insurance
> > institutions (having a
> > > lot of transactions in their DB applications) use either
> > IBM mainframes or
> > > SUN E10k's :-)
> > > Personally I think a weaker processor with top of the line
> > I/O will perform
> > > better for DB apps than the fastest processor with crappy I/O.
> > >
> > > i guess the "my $0.02" is in order here :-)
> > >
> >
>
> i totally agree with this
> ---
> Miguel
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if
your
> joining column's datatypes do not match

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org