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 162449DC9A6 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 15:05:24 -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 71126-08 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 15:05:23 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from vms044pub.verizon.net (vms044pub.verizon.net [206.46.252.44]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 528D89DC81A for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 15:05:21 -0400 (AST) Received: from osgiliath.mathom.us ([70.108.72.158]) by vms044.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.02 (built Sep 9 2005)) with ESMTPA id <0IS600LUB7OUAEE4@vms044.mailsrvcs.net> for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 13:05:18 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by osgiliath.mathom.us (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19B546003E0 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:05:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from osgiliath.mathom.us ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (osgiliath [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 05809-01 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:05:16 -0500 (EST) Received: by osgiliath.mathom.us (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BC0D96001C0; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:05:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:05:16 -0500 From: Michael Stone Subject: Re: What's the best hardver for PostgreSQL 8.1? In-reply-to: <6.2.5.6.0.20051227110304.01dc1000@earthlink.net> To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Mail-followup-to: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Message-id: <20051227190516.GB6811@mathom.us> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-disposition: inline X-Pgp-Fingerprint: 53 FF 38 00 E7 DD 0A 9C 84 52 84 C5 EE DF 7C 88 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at mathom.us References: <200512212209.50234.caseroj@comcast.net> <200512212231.55100.caseroj@comcast.net> <20051224135042.484c6e32.frank@wiles.org> <6.2.5.6.0.20051224161551.01dc5d98@earthlink.net> <6.2.5.6.0.20051224172653.01dd4c08@earthlink.net> <20051225173755.GA6986@mathom.us> <33c6269f0512260932g38c9b7a4uc2aba00f72ff77@mail.gmail.com> <20051227133526.GA6811@mathom.us> <6.2.5.6.0.20051227110304.01dc1000@earthlink.net> 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: 200512/637 X-Sequence-Number: 16458 On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 11:50:16AM -0500, Ron wrote: >Sorry. A decade+ RWE in production with RAID 5 using controllers as >bad as Adaptec and as good as Mylex, Chaparral, LSI Logic (including >their Engino stuff), and Xyratex under 5 different OS's (Sun, Linux, >M$, DEC, HP) on each of Oracle, SQL Server, DB2, mySQL, and pg shows >that RAID 5 writes are slower than RAID 5 reads What does that have to do with anything? That wasn't the question... >RAID 5 is not a silver bullet. Who said it was? Nothing is, not even RAID 10. The appropriate thing to do is to make decisions based on requirements, not to make sweeping statements that eliminate entire categories of solutions based on hand waving. Mike Stone