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 646569DC80C for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 15:24:33 -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 74281-05 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 15:24:28 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from mail.mi8.com (d01gw04.mi8.com [63.240.6.44]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 298489DC9C9 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 15:24:23 -0400 (AST) Received: from 172.16.1.110 by mail.mi8.com with ESMTP (- Welcome to Mi8 Corporation www.Mi8.com (D4)); Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:24:19 -0500 X-Server-Uuid: C8FB4D43-1108-484A-A898-3CBCC7906230 Received: from MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com ([172.16.1.175]) by D01SMTP01.Mi8.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:24:18 -0500 Received: from 67.103.45.218 ([67.103.45.218]) by MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com ( [172.16.1.219]) via Exchange Front-End Server mi8owa.mi8.com ( [172.16.1.106]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:24:18 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.1.051004 Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 11:24:17 -0800 Subject: Re: What's the best hardver for PostgreSQL 8.1? From: "Luke Lonergan" To: "Bruce Momjian" , "Ron" cc: "Michael Stone" , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [PERFORM] What's the best hardver for PostgreSQL 8.1? Thread-Index: AcYLDlYxGi/XaYB3RzyLteeUIiYGQAADMqpa In-Reply-To: <200512271751.jBRHpw307927@candle.pha.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Dec 2005 19:24:18.0945 (UTC) FILETIME=[22058F10:01C60B1B] X-WSS-ID: 6FAF4B6812G1773291-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.28 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.027, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=1.253] X-Spam-Score: 1.28 X-Spam-Level: * X-Archive-Number: 200512/639 X-Sequence-Number: 16460 Bruce, On 12/27/05 9:51 AM, "Bruce Momjian" wrote: > Historically, I have heard that RAID5 is only faster than RAID10 if > there are six or more drives. Speaking of testing / proof, check this site out: http://www.wlug.org.nz/HarddiskBenchmarks I really like the idea - post your bonnie++ results so people can learn from your configurations. We've built a performance reporting site, but we can't seem to get it into shape for release. I'd really like to light a performance leaderboard / experiences site up somewhere... - Luke