Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE7669F94AD for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2007 15:07:50 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 54567-09 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2007 15:07:36 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com (rv-out-0910.google.com [209.85.198.190]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EDF99F9503 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2007 15:07:47 -0300 (ADT) Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id l15so214699rvb for ; Thu, 06 Sep 2007 11:07:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=1uUhithXRMqlkD9wWBpCB+L4PgF+dEAsMVVpmGK5ihk=; b=XEwoiQjnvO+yEFonh5NZlQIob/vytkSGtBqSqrBnTywTTtanyoJI7D1d2SmMcymXOv45VRtwAO/KXj4nkrlZVywtZjBYOZVvWciZ4RVhv5RyN1MYNLHRuMmNapYxJt9307M9voBv+u9bgMO/UDFEJKAoS/AJmvX3r1nhYiCBkUY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=dsIABQ3Lb5BMRhzBaxlMFIg0gLplv+AMEM/0WQMRTw31yyp9U1ta35G/xhi2i5e8J8PYS0Ny1F7gsD+boLlVf77OlmZrBVcx5p7w6BqNLsDrt1jODLjqqghV57wRxYkVKUqBG1A9PwNoZ/luxqS0VMN3eyktCYJbxjh4xNB+kcU= Received: by 10.140.250.14 with SMTP id x14mr361662rvh.1189102063858; Thu, 06 Sep 2007 11:07:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.141.159.11 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Sep 2007 11:07:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 13:07:43 -0500 From: "Scott Marlowe" To: "Harsh Azad" Subject: Re: SAN vs Internal Disks Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200709/88 X-Sequence-Number: 26633 On 9/6/07, Harsh Azad wrote: > Thanks Scott, we have now requested IBM/EMC to provide test machines. > Interestingly since you mentioned the importance of Raid controllers and the > drivers; we are planning to use Cent OS 5 for hosting the DB. What RAID controllers have you looked at. Seems the two most popular in terms of performance here have been Areca and 3Ware / Escalade. LSI seems to come in a pretty close third. Adaptec is to be avoided as are cheap RAID controllers (i.e. promise etc...) battery backed cache is a must, and the bigger the better. > 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? > > 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? for all intents and purposes, CentOS and RHEL are the same OS, so any pgsql rpm for one should pretty much work for the other. At the worst, you might have to get a srpm and rebuild it for CentOS / White Box.