X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 411109FA13E for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:44:28 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 17777-09 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:44:23 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from projects.commandprompt.com (host-130.commandprompt.net [207.173.203.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1407C9F9316 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:44:22 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.1.50] (or-67-76-146-141.sta.sprint-hsd.net [67.76.146.141]) (authenticated bits=0) by projects.commandprompt.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k5DJiKIt012207; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:44:21 -0700 Message-ID: <448F1591.4000404@commandprompt.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:44:17 -0700 From: "Joshua D. Drake" Organization: Command Prompt, Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060521) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Scott Marlowe CC: steve.poe@gmail.com, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Which processor runs better for Postgresql? References: <1150221760.12191.25.camel@amd64-gentoo-laptop> <1150225202.29299.51.camel@state.g2switchworks.com> In-Reply-To: <1150225202.29299.51.camel@state.g2switchworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.88.2, clamav-milter version 0.88.2 on projects.commandprompt.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Greylist: Sender succeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-1.6 (projects.commandprompt.com [192.168.2.159]); Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:44:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200606/200 X-Sequence-Number: 19557 Scott Marlowe wrote: > On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 13:02, Steve Poe wrote: >> I have a client who is running Postgresql 7.4.x series database >> (required to use 7.4.x). They are planning an upgrade to a new server. >> They are insistent on Dell. > > Do they have a logical reason for this, or is it mostly hand-waving? They probably do. They have probably standardized on Dell hardware. It is technically a dumb reason, but from a business standpoint it makes sense. My > experience has been hand waving. Last company I was at, the CIO bragged > about having saved a million a year on server by going with Dell. His > numbers were made up, and, in fact, we spent a large portion of each > week babysitting those god awful 2600 series machines with adaptec cards > and the serverworks chipset. And they were slow compared to anything > else with similar specs. You can get extremely competitive quotes from IBM or HP as long as you say, "You are competing against Dell". > Dells tend to perform poorly, period. They choose low end parts (the > 2600's Serverworks chipset is widely regarded as one of the slowest > chipset for the P-IV there is.) and then mucking around with the BIOS of > the add in cards to make them somewhat stable with their dodgy hardware. I can confirm this. >> I am hoping the client is willing to wait for Dell to ship a AMD >> Opeteron-based server. Tell them to go with an HP DL 385. They will be much happier. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/