Message-ID: <437E2E06.5070306@rentec.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 14:39:50 -0500
From: Alan Stange <stange@rentec.com>
Reply-To: stange@rentec.com
Organization: Renaissance Technologies Corp.
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20051025)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
CC: Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com>, Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>,
	Joshua Marsh <icub3d@gmail.com>, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases (
References: <BFA362F3.14099%llonergan@greenplum.com>
In-Reply-To: <BFA362F3.14099%llonergan@greenplum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Luke Lonergan wrote:
>> opterons from Sun that we got some time ago.   I think the 130MB/s is
>> slow given the hardware, but it's acceptable.  I'm not too price
>> sensitive; I care much more about reliability, uptime, etc.
>>     
> I don't know what the system cost. It was part of block of dual
>
> Then I know what they cost - we have them too (V20z and V40z).  You should
> be getting 400MB/s+ with external RAID.
Yes, but we don't.   This is where I would normally begin a rant on how 
craptacular Linux can be at times.  But, for the sake of this 
discussion, postgresql isn't reading the data any more slowly than does 
any other program.

And we don't have the time to experiment with the box.

I know it should be better, but it's good enough for our purposes at 
this time.

-- Alan