X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D0C19F9FE3 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:04:24 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 38400-07 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:04:19 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from exchange.g2switchworks.com (mail.g2switchworks.com [63.87.162.25]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 797969F9CAA for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:04:20 -0300 (ADT) Received: from 10.10.1.37 ([10.10.1.37]) by exchange.g2switchworks.com ([10.10.1.2]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Wed, 14 Jun 2006 17:04:18 +0000 Received: from state.g2switchworks.com by mail.g2switchworks.com; 14 Jun 2006 12:04:18 -0500 Subject: Re: Which processor runs better for Postgresql? From: Scott Marlowe To: Dave Page Cc: "Joshua D. Drake" , steve.poe@gmail.com, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1150304658.26538.12.camel@state.g2switchworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 (1.4.6-2) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 12:04:18 -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200606/260 X-Sequence-Number: 19617 On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 15:11, Dave Page wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > And how old are the 2600's now? > > Anyhoo, I'm not saying the current machines are excellent performers or > anything, but there are good business reasons to run them if you don't > need to squeeze out every last pony. Just thought I'd point you to Dell's forums. http://forums.us.dell.com/supportforums/board?board.id=pes_linux&page=1 wherein you'll find plenty of folks who have problems with freezing RAID controllers with 28xx and 18xx machines.