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 2189D9DC871
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 24 Feb 2006 20:18:53 -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 23956-10
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 24 Feb 2006 20:18:55 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-
Received: from smtp2-g19.free.fr (smtp2-g19.free.fr [212.27.42.28])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7DCB9DC848
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 24 Feb 2006 20:18:50 -0400 (AST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (rue92-4-82-236-4-82.fbx.proxad.net [82.236.4.82])
	by smtp2-g19.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C28526CFA6
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Sat, 25 Feb 2006 01:18:53 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <43FFA26C.5020802@free.fr>
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 01:18:52 +0100
From: Philippe Marzin <philippe.marzin@free.fr>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201)
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Reliability recommendations
References: <C024DFA1.1DC2D%llonergan@greenplum.com>
In-Reply-To: <C024DFA1.1DC2D%llonergan@greenplum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="------------060601010405050704090007"
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.19 required=5 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
	MISSING_HEADERS=0.189]
X-Spam-Score: 0.19
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200602/396
X-Sequence-Number: 17382

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------060601010405050704090007
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Do you have a hw reference that runs that fast (5 x 30 =3D 150MB/s) ?


Luke Lonergan a =E9crit :
> Joshua,
>
> On 2/24/06 9:19 AM, "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>
>  =20
>> This machine... if you run it in raid 5 will only get 7-9 megabytes a
>> second READ! performance. That is with 6 SCSI drives.
>> If you run it in RAID 10 you get a more reasonable 50-55 megabytes per=

>> second.
>>
>> I don't have it sitting in front of me or I would give you an exact
>> model number.
>>
>> This machine also uses the serverworks chipset which is known to be a
>> catastrophe.
>>    =20
>
> I'd be more shocked if this weren't also true of nearly all SCSI HW RAI=
D
> adapters of this era.  If you had ordered an HP DL380 server you'd get =
about
> the same performance.
>
> BTW - I don't think there's anything reasonable about 50-55 MB/s from 6=

> disks, I'd put the minimum for this era machine at 5 x 30 =3D 150MB/s.
>
> - Luke
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------=
-
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
>        subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that you=
r
>        message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
>
>
>  =20

--------------060601010405050704090007
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  <title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000099">
Do you have a hw reference that runs that fast (5 x 30 = 150MB/s) ?<br>
<br>
<br>
Luke Lonergan a &eacute;crit&nbsp;:
<blockquote cite="midC024DFA1.1DC2D%25llonergan@greenplum.com"
 type="cite">
  <pre wrap="">Joshua,

On 2/24/06 9:19 AM, "Joshua D. Drake" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jd@commandprompt.com">&lt;jd@commandprompt.com&gt;</a> wrote:

  </pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">This machine... if you run it in raid 5 will only get 7-9 megabytes a
second READ! performance. That is with 6 SCSI drives.
If you run it in RAID 10 you get a more reasonable 50-55 megabytes per
second.

I don't have it sitting in front of me or I would give you an exact
model number.

This machine also uses the serverworks chipset which is known to be a
catastrophe.
    </pre>
  </blockquote>
  <pre wrap=""><!---->
I'd be more shocked if this weren't also true of nearly all SCSI HW RAID
adapters of this era.  If you had ordered an HP DL380 server you'd get about
the same performance.

BTW - I don't think there's anything reasonable about 50-55 MB/s from 6
disks, I'd put the minimum for this era machine at 5 x 30 = 150MB/s.

- Luke



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
       subscribe-nomail command to <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org">majordomo@postgresql.org</a> so that your
       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly



  </pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>

--------------060601010405050704090007--