X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88E61539C3 for ; Sun, 15 May 2005 18:15:39 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 88981-04 for ; Sun, 15 May 2005 21:15:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from floppy.pyrenet.fr (news.pyrenet.fr [194.116.145.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E21DA53761 for ; Sun, 15 May 2005 18:15:34 -0300 (ADT) Received: by floppy.pyrenet.fr (Postfix, from userid 106) id 6884330952; Sun, 15 May 2005 23:13:05 +0200 (MET DST) From: William Yu X-Newsgroups: pgsql.performance Subject: Re: Postgresql Performance via the LSI MegaRAID 2x Card Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 14:15:28 -0700 Organization: Hub.Org Networking Services Lines: 17 Message-ID: References: <42854341.6030702@sfnet.cc> <200505131728.46276.josh@agliodbs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.hub.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: <200505131728.46276.josh@agliodbs.com> To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200505/291 X-Sequence-Number: 12455 I'm sure there's some corner case where more memory helps. If you consider that 1GB of RAM is about $100, I'd max out memory on the controller just for the hell of it. Josh Berkus wrote: > Steve, > > >>Past recommendations for a good RAID card (for SCSI) have been the LSI >>MegaRAID 2x. This unit comes with 128MB of RAM on-board. Has anyone >>found by increasing the on-board RAM, did Postgresql performed better? > > > My informal tests showed no difference between 64MB and 256MB. >