Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.182]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B48AE9F9BBF for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2007 01:26:26 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 82319-04 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2007 01:26:04 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from westnet.com (westnet.com [216.187.52.2]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F6E99F9945 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2007 01:26:21 -0300 (ADT) Received: from westnet.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by westnet.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l874QNub004709 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2007 00:26:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (gsmith@localhost) by westnet.com (8.14.0/8.13.2/Submit) with ESMTP id l874QNXv004706 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2007 00:26:23 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: westnet.com: gsmith owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 00:26:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Greg Smith X-X-Sender: gsmith@westnet.com To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: SAN vs Internal Disks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200709/111 X-Sequence-Number: 26656 On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, Harsh Azad wrote: > Firstly, I could only find postgres 8.1.x RPM for CentOS 5, could not find > any RPM for 8.2.4. Is there any 8.2.4 RPM for CentOS 5? You've already been pointed in the right direction. Devrim, the person who handles this packaging, does a great job of building all the RPMs. But I have a small philisophical difference with the suggested instructions for actually installing them though. I just finished an alternate installation guide for RHEL/CentOS 5 that's now posted at http://www.westnet.com/~gsmith/content/postgresql/pgrpm.htm you may want to take a look at. > Secondly, would investing into Redhat enterprise edition give any > performance advantage? I know all the SAN boxes are only certified on > RHEL and not CentOS. Or since CentOS is similar to RHEL it would be > fine? Wouldn't expect a performance advantage. The situation you have to ask consider is this: your SAN starts having funky problems, and your database is down because of it. You call the vendor. They find out you're running CentOS instead of RHEL and say that's the cause of your problem (even though it probably isn't). How much will such a passing the buck problem cost your company? If it's a significant number, you'd be foolish to run CentOS instead of the real RHEL. Some SAN vendors can be very, very picky about what they will support, and for most business environments the RHEL subscription isn't so expensive that it's worth wandering into an area where your support situation is fuzzy just to save that money. -- * Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD