X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3769254C55 for ; Fri, 13 May 2005 21:27:25 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 53227-06 for ; Sat, 14 May 2005 00:27:24 +0000 (GMT) Received: from davinci.ethosmedia.com (server227.ethosmedia.com [209.128.84.227]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8DEE549FA for ; Fri, 13 May 2005 21:27:23 -0300 (ADT) X-EthosMedia-Virus-Scanned: no infections found Received: from [64.81.245.111] (account josh@agliodbs.com HELO temoku.sf.agliodbs.com) by davinci.ethosmedia.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP id 7360614; Fri, 13 May 2005 17:29:26 -0700 From: Josh Berkus Reply-To: josh@agliodbs.com Organization: Aglio Database Solutions To: Steve Poe Subject: Re: Postgresql Performance via the LSI MegaRAID 2x Card Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 17:28:46 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org References: <42854341.6030702@sfnet.cc> In-Reply-To: <42854341.6030702@sfnet.cc> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200505131728.46276.josh@agliodbs.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.046 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200505/278 X-Sequence-Number: 12442 Steve, > Past recommendations for a good RAID card (for SCSI) have been the LSI > MegaRAID 2x. This unit comes with 128MB of RAM on-board. Has anyone > found by increasing the on-board RAM, did Postgresql performed better? My informal tests showed no difference between 64MB and 256MB. -- --Josh Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco