X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9AD99DC9CB for ; Sun, 25 Dec 2005 08:29:19 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 72316-08 for ; Sun, 25 Dec 2005 08:29:21 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from cassarossa.samfundet.no (cassarossa.samfundet.no [129.241.93.19]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E75859DC95F for ; Sun, 25 Dec 2005 08:29:16 -0400 (AST) Received: from trofast.ipv6.sesse.net ([2001:700:300:dc03:20e:cff:fe36:a766] helo=trofast.sesse.net) by cassarossa.samfundet.no with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1EqV02-0005Bp-TQ for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Sun, 25 Dec 2005 13:29:19 +0100 Received: from sesse by trofast.sesse.net with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1EqV04-0003PZ-00 for ; Sun, 25 Dec 2005 13:29:20 +0100 Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 13:29:19 +0100 From: "Steinar H. Gunderson" To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: What's the best hardver for PostgreSQL 8.1? Message-ID: <20051225122919.GA13089@uio.no> Mail-Followup-To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org References: <3E37B936B592014B978C4415F90D662D01F1B59F@MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com> <3E37B936B592014B978C4415F90D662D01F47552@MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Operating-System: Linux 2.6.14.3 on a x86_64 X-Message-Flag: Outlook? --> http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.053 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.053] X-Spam-Score: 0.053 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200512/609 X-Sequence-Number: 16430 On Sun, Dec 25, 2005 at 04:13:57AM -0800, David Lang wrote: > Thanks for the clarification, I knew that PATA didn't do hotswap, and I've > seen discussions on the linux-kernel list about SATA hotswap being worked > on, but I thought that scsi handled it. how recent a kernel have you had > problems with? Is has largely worked for us, even though it's a bit hackish -- you _must_ disconnect the drive properly in the kernel before ejecting it physically, though, or it will never reconnect. At least that's how it is with our Adaptec 19160. /* Steinar */ -- Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/