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 CA4129DCC2C for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:04:27 -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 41560-01-2 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:04:27 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from peufeu.com (boutiquenumerique.com [82.67.9.10]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A6829DC843 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:04:24 -0400 (AST) Received: (qmail 32394 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2006 20:04:55 +0100 Received: from boutiquenumerique.com (HELO apollo13) (82.67.9.10) by boutiquenumerique.com with SMTP; 21 Mar 2006 20:04:55 +0100 To: "Vivek Khera" , "Postgresql Performance" Subject: Re: Best OS & Configuration for Dual Xeon w/4GB & Adaptec References: <20060317221116.GA14661@juniper.net> <8F6490E1-64E2-406B-A559-7DA8BA1EB197@khera.org> <441F161D.7010502@123.com.sv> <878CF1DF-7173-4620-B56A-0CC8D25B3671@khera.org> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 20:04:54 +0100 From: PFC Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=utf-8 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <878CF1DF-7173-4620-B56A-0CC8D25B3671@khera.org> User-Agent: Opera M2/8.51 (Linux, build 1462) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.111 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.111] X-Spam-Score: 0.111 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200603/420 X-Sequence-Number: 17857 >> Expensive SCSI hardware RAID cards with expensive 10Krpm harddisks >> should not get humiliated by such a simple (and cheap) setup. (I'm >> referring to the 12-drive RAID10 mentioned before, not the other one >> which was a simple 2-disk mirror). Toms hardware benchmarked some >> hardware RAIDs and got humongous transfer rates... hm ? >> > > I'll put up my "slow" 12 disk SCSI array up against your IDE array on a > large parallel load any day. Sure, and I have no doubt that yours will be immensely faster on parallel loads than mine, but still, it should also be the case on sequential scan... especially since I have desktop PCI and the original poster has a real server with PCI-X I think.