Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.29])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE8ADB5DC07
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Sun, 11 Sep 2011 23:12:27 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 17879-04
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 12 Sep 2011 02:12:22 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from zeus.simkin.ca (zeus.simkin.ca [72.51.27.124])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECD0BB5DBF2
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Sun, 11 Sep 2011 23:12:21 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from pc-1096.simkin.ca (S0106c43dc79b28be.vc.shawcable.net
	[96.49.251.246])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by zeus.simkin.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D7BB7270903
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Sun, 11 Sep 2011 19:12:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Alan Hodgson <ahodgson@simkin.ca>
Organization: Simkin Network Consulting
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: RAID Controller (HP P400) beat by SW-RAID?
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 19:12:16 -0700
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.38-11-generic; KDE/4.6.2; x86_64; ; )
References: 
 <CAO2AxyoGvmRYtq=1=weOU_CCnAxK8FboBa8GWS6XZ923CXCCgA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAO2AxyoGvmRYtq=1=weOU_CCnAxK8FboBa8GWS6XZ923CXCCgA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201109111912.17064.ahodgson@simkin.ca>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.404 tagged_above=-10 required=5
	tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.504
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 201109/133
X-Sequence-Number: 44909

On September 11, 2011 03:44:34 PM Anthony Presley wrote:
> First thing I noticed is that it takes the same amount of time to load the
> db (about 40 minutes) on the new hardware as the old hardware.  I was
> really hoping with the faster, additional drives and a hardware RAID
> controller, that this would be faster.  The database is only about 9GB
> with pg_dump (about 28GB with indexes).

Loading the DB is going to be CPU-bound (on a single) core, unless your disks 
really suck, which they don't. Most of the time will be spent building 
indexes.

I don't know offhand why the queries are slower, though, unless you're not 
getting as much cached before testing as on the older box.