From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | "Scott Marlowe" <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, <steve(dot)poe(at)gmail(dot)com>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Which processor runs better for Postgresql? |
Date: | 2006-06-14 20:00:57 |
Message-ID: | E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E401388955@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Marlowe [mailto:smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com]
> Sent: 14 June 2006 20:52
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Joshua D. Drake; steve(dot)poe(at)gmail(dot)com;
> pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: RE: [PERFORM] Which processor runs better for Postgresql?
>
>
> Yeah, We've got a mix of 2650 and 2850s, and our 2850s have been rock
> solid stable, unlike the 2650s. I was actually kinda surprised to see
> how many people have problems with the 2850s.
>
> Apparently, the 2850 mobos have a built in RAID that's pretty stable
> (it's got a PERC number I can't remembeR), but ordering them
> with an add
> on Perc RAID controller appears to make them somewhat
> unstable as well.
That might be it - we always chose the onboard PERC because it has twice
the cache of the other options.
Regards, Dave.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-06-14 20:03:00 | Re: Postgres consuming way too much memory??? |
Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2006-06-14 19:52:06 | Re: Which processor runs better for Postgresql? |