Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.191]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99D969F9BAC for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2007 19:15:46 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 02985-02 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2007 19:15:42 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com (wx-out-0506.google.com [66.249.82.232]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AC599F9CF3 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2007 19:15:42 -0300 (ADT) Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id r21so2063161wxc for ; Wed, 05 Sep 2007 15:15:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:from:reply-to:to:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=Kx2bv1nyLA+PSlNEH3WK8tGnQS4U2VcMv18bsKtPZsOmAqteYI0E/OYOx6nPUJW4uZEqSIXKqSZvlBH8P6j04DTZ1LNfY6we1UOZwxajbmFNg+2RVeSHBYV3AA54QPYPZe8ezYJ0aemTsYe0MT5a29hr5hrTJ7kA4va0kvN2dPE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:subject:from:reply-to:to:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=YNiTFnLnB2Fp0jq39uZ3KF1Ga0MiRVM6b2N7soJAmp3UE7NT+b7rxRmq5fpHtjJtevMArmpnXybR2Tnb/iX7i69OT3w4O/oD+wSgTWQpeNkc8ATFUjhM1dSV/54h8v1OOywj7Bh9i3ZnTA9ealGmwC7gYCooJZBmN8J1nE5JdVo= Received: by 10.90.105.19 with SMTP id d19mr3049303agc.1189030540729; Wed, 05 Sep 2007 15:15:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.3.148? ( [68.79.189.145]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 18sm8103502agb.2007.09.05.15.15.38 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 05 Sep 2007 15:15:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Performance on 8CPU's and 32GB of RAM From: Adam Tauno Williams Reply-To: adamtaunowilliams@gmail.com To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: References: <20070904230639.GA23731@alvh.no-ip.org> <46DE66CF.9000903@theendofthetunnel.de> <90bce5730709051016j5291827dx525d6b8fe4960fbd@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 18:15:58 -0400 Message-Id: <1189030558.4773.4.camel@aleph.wmmi.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200709/63 X-Sequence-Number: 26608 On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 14:36 -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote: > On 9/5/07, Trevor Talbot wrote: > > On 9/5/07, Scott Marlowe wrote: > > > On 9/5/07, Carlo Stonebanks wrote: > > > > > Right, additionally NTFS is really nothing to use on any serious disc > > > > > array. > > > > Do you mean that I will not see any big improvement if I upgrade the disk > > > > subsystem because the client is using NTFS (i.e. Windows) I haven't had a corrupt NTFS filesystem is ages; even with hardware failures. If NTFS was inherently unstable there wouldn't be hundreds of thousands of large M$-SQL and Exchange instances. > And there's the issue that with windows / NTFS that when one process > opens a file for read, it locks it for all other users. This isn't true; the mode of a file open is up to the application. Possibly lots of Windows applications are stupid or sloppy in how they manage files but that isn't a flaw in NTFS. -- Adam Tauno Williams, Network & Systems Administrator Consultant - http://www.whitemiceconsulting.com Developer - http://www.opengroupware.org