Re: Re: Re: Fast Inserts and Hardware Questions

From: adb <adb(at)Beast(dot)COM>
To: Alex Howansky <alex(at)wankwood(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Fast Inserts and Hardware Questions
Date: 2001-03-16 22:44:57
Message-ID: Pine.GSO.4.10.10103161441340.2561-100000@hairdini.beast.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

it all depends on the number of drives, the type of drives
and if raid is being done in hardware or software.

A three drive raid 5 array in software with older drives
is probably going to be slower than a single 7200rpm ata100 drive.

Not that this is what you have, just pointing out that it's possible.

Alex.

On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Alex Howansky wrote:

> > [Interesting stats]
> >
> > > Wow, does WAL make so much of a difference as to make my
> > > two-generations-old, built-from-spare-parts scrap box faster than my
> > > latest and greatest production server? Yikes!
> >
> > What RAID level are you running? RAID-5 isn't always very
> > fast on writes. That and WAL might be what's up.
>
> Yes, it is RAID-5 on the big box. Unfortunately, I don't have any spare RAID
> equipped boxes sitting around, so I can't experiment with the different RAID
> levels. Still, you'd think that even a "slow" RAID-5 configuration would be
> faster than a $98 IDE drive...
>
> > Have you tried 7.1b5 on the big box?
>
> Not yet, I'm waiting for a quiet weekend. I'll post my stats when (if...) I get
> around to doing that.
>
> --
> Alex Howansky
> Wankwood Associates
> http://www.wankwood.com/
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Steve Wolfe 2001-03-16 22:59:32 Re: Re: Re: Fast Inserts and Hardware Questions
Previous Message Bill Barnes 2001-03-16 22:39:20 URL for gmake