X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60F0FDA5AF for ; Sat, 26 Nov 2005 20:12:03 -0400 (AST) 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 34708-03 for ; Sun, 27 Nov 2005 00:12:05 +0000 (GMT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.177]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61445DA531 for ; Sat, 26 Nov 2005 20:11:59 -0400 (AST) Received: from [84.143.22.121] (helo=pse.dyndns.org) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrelayeu6) with ESMTP (Nemesis), id 0ML29c-1EgA9C393d-0002u4; Sun, 27 Nov 2005 01:12:02 +0100 Received: from pse1 ([192.168.0.3]) by pse.dyndns.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1EgA9B-0001gC-Gq; Sun, 27 Nov 2005 01:12:01 +0100 Message-ID: <4388F9D1.6080609@pse-consulting.de> Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 00:12:01 +0000 From: Andreas Pflug User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Qingqing Zhou CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Open request for benchmarking input References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.89.5.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: kundenserver.de abuse@kundenserver.de login:0ce7ee5c3478b8d72edd8e05ccd40b70 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.033 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033] X-Spam-Score: 0.033 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200511/519 X-Sequence-Number: 15776 Qingqing Zhou wrote: > "Jeff Frost" wrote >> "The hardware I have available is as follows: >> >> * 2x dual Opteron 8G ram, 2x144G 15Krpm SCSI >> * 2x dual Opteron 8G ram, 2x72G 15Krpm SCSI >> * 1x dual Opteron 16G ram, 2x36G 15Krpm SCSI 16x400G 7200rpm SATA >> > (2) The hardware configuration may not reflect all potentials of PostgreSQL. These boxes don't look like being designed for a DB server. The first are very CPU bound, and the third may be a good choice for very large amounts of streamed data, but not optimal for TP random access. Hopefully, when publicly visible benchmarks are performed, machines are used that comply with common engineering knowledge, ignoring those guys who still believe that sequential performance is the most important issue on disk subsystems for DBMS. Regards, Andreas