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 49BDE9DC9BD for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 11:25:16 -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 97632-02 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 11:25:20 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from mail.mi8.com (d01gw02.mi8.com [63.240.6.46]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C61A9DC868 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 11:25:11 -0400 (AST) Received: from 172.16.1.110 by mail.mi8.com with ESMTP (- Welcome to Mi8 Corporation www.Mi8.com (D2)); Tue, 21 Mar 2006 10:25:10 -0500 X-Server-Uuid: 7829E76E-BB9E-4995-8473-3C0929DF7DD1 Received: from MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com ([172.16.1.160]) by D01SMTP01.Mi8.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 21 Mar 2006 10:25:10 -0500 Received: from 69.181.100.71 ([69.181.100.71]) 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, 21 Mar 2006 15:25:09 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.3.060209 Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 07:25:07 -0800 Subject: Re: Best OS & Configuration for Dual Xeon w/4GB & From: "Luke Lonergan" To: "Jim C. Nasby" cc: "Miguel" , "Postgresql Performance" Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [PERFORM] Best OS & Configuration for Dual Xeon w/4GB & Thread-Index: AcZM3ZBOujwWff3dQK2URpifL3yy1QAHhH93 In-Reply-To: <20060321114937.GL15742@pervasive.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Mar 2006 15:25:10.0739 (UTC) FILETIME=[A4861230:01C64CFB] X-WSS-ID: 683EC55C2XS31295945-01-01 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=1.35 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.097, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=1.253] X-Spam-Score: 1.35 X-Spam-Level: * X-Archive-Number: 200603/406 X-Sequence-Number: 17843 Jim, On 3/21/06 3:49 AM, "Jim C. Nasby" wrote: > No, I don't know why the transfer rates for the mirror are 1/2 that as the raw > device. :( Well - lessee. Would those drives be attached to a Silicon Image (SII) SATA controller? A Highpoint? I found in testing about 2 years ago that under Linux (looks like you're BSD), most SATA controllers other than the Intel PIIX are horribly broken from a performance standpoint, probably due to bad drivers but I'm not sure. Now I think whatever is commonly used by Nforce 4 implementations seems to work ok, but we don't count on them for RAID configurations yet. - Luke