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 882679DCA61 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:03:02 -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 92947-09 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:03:02 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from floppy.pyrenet.fr (floppy.pyrenet.fr [194.116.145.2]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C83109DCA4C for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:02:59 -0400 (AST) Received: by floppy.pyrenet.fr (Postfix, from userid 106) id 0D68E3093C; Wed, 15 Feb 2006 20:03:00 +0100 (MET) From: Christopher Browne X-Newsgroups: pgsql.performance Subject: Re: Reliability recommendations Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 13:44:27 -0500 Organization: cbbrowne Computing Inc Lines: 50 Message-ID: <87r764wjg4.fsf@wolfe.cbbrowne.com> References: <20060215090446.2F3AC1B819F@mx1.hub.org> <1140018387.43f34cd36a076@imp2-g19.free.fr> <1140018967.43f34f1761803@imp2-g19.free.fr> <1140020490.9369.254450363@webmail.messagingengine.com> <43F36D51.5090502@commandprompt.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.hub.org X-message-flag: Outlook is rather hackable, isn't it? X-Home-Page: http://www.cbbrowne.com/info/ X-Affero: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=cbbrowne User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ajl2h/8oxknAlyMzwXyIAoRR6FU= To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.67 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.143, INFO_TLD=0.813] X-Spam-Score: 0.67 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200602/209 X-Sequence-Number: 17195 After takin a swig o' Arrakan spice grog, jd@commandprompt.com ("Joshua D. Drake") belched out: > Jeremy Haile wrote: >> We are a small company looking to put together the most cost effective >> solution for our production database environment. Currently in >> production Postgres 8.1 is running on this machine: >> >> Dell 2850 >> 2 x 3.0 Ghz Xeon 800Mhz FSB 2MB Cache >> 4 GB DDR2 400 Mhz >> 2 x 73 GB 10K SCSI RAID 1 (for xlog and OS) >> 4 x 146 GB 10K SCSI RAID 10 (for postgres data) >> Perc4ei controller >> >> The above is a standard Dell box with nothing added or modified beyond >> the options available directly through Dell. > You should probably review the archives for PostgreSQL user > experience with Dell's before you purchase one. Hear, hear! We found Dell servers were big-time underperformers. Generic hardware put together with generally the same brand names of components (e.g. - for SCSI controllers and such) would generally play much better. For the cheapo desktop boxes they obviously have to buy the "cheapest hardware available this week;" it sure seems as though they engage in the same sort of thing with the "server class" hardware. I don't think anyone has been able to forcibly point out any completely precise shortcoming; just that they underperform what the specs suggest they ought to be able to provide. >> I sent our scenario to our sales team at Dell and they came back >> with all manner of SAN, DAS, and configuration costing as much as >> $50k. > HAHAHAHAHA.... Don't do that. Dell is making the assumption you > won't do your homework. Make sure you cross quote with IBM, Compaq > and Penguin Computing... Indeed. -- (format nil "~S@~S" "cbbrowne" "gmail.com") http://linuxdatabases.info/info/rdbms.html Rules of the Evil Overlord #141. "As an alternative to not having children, I will have _lots_ of children. My sons will be too busy jockeying for position to ever be a real threat, and the daughters will all sabotage each other's attempts to win the hero."