On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 4:19 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 11/2/2016 3:01 PM, Steve Crawford wrote:
>>
>> After much cogitation I eventually went RAID-less. Why? The only option
>> for hardware RAID was SAS SSDs and given that they are not built on
>> electro-mechanical spinning-rust technology it
On 11/2/2016 3:01 PM, Steve Crawford wrote:
After much cogitation I eventually went RAID-less. Why? The only
option for hardware RAID was SAS SSDs and given that they are not
built on electro-mechanical spinning-rust technology it seemed like
the RAID card was just another point of solid-state
After much cogitation I eventually went RAID-less. Why? The only option for
hardware RAID was SAS SSDs and given that they are not built on
electro-mechanical spinning-rust technology it seemed like the RAID card
was just another point of solid-state failure. I combined that with the
fact that the
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On 11/02/2016 10:03 AM, Steve Atkins wrote:
>>
>> I'm looking for generic advice on hardware to use for "mid-sized"
>> postgresql servers, $5k or a bit more.
>>
>> There are several good documents from the 9.0 era, but hardware has moved
>>
On 11/02/2016 10:03 AM, Steve Atkins wrote:
I'm looking for generic advice on hardware to use for "mid-sized" postgresql
servers, $5k or a bit more.
There are several good documents from the 9.0 era, but hardware has moved on
since then, particularly with changes in SSD pricing.
Has anyone se
I'm looking for generic advice on hardware to use for "mid-sized" postgresql
servers, $5k or a bit more.
There are several good documents from the 9.0 era, but hardware has moved on
since then, particularly with changes in SSD pricing.
Has anyone seen a more recent discussion of what someone mi
Hoping to tap into the hive mind here.
I'm looking to upgrade drives on some of our db servers and am hoping
someone has run/tested a similar setup in the past and can share their
wisdom.
I have a pair of Dell R910s with H700 controllers and am looking to
replace the existing drives with SSDs. Ri
Thanks to Gavin and Alban for additional considerations, all very useful.
As for Linux, I have to admit that I am biased too! I use it heavily, which
is the reason I would incline for its use. But after all, since I'm not
going to administrate the server, the best choice will probably be IT
cho
On 12 February 2015 at 00:38, Mathieu Basille
wrote:
> Platform
>
>
> Linux is the platform of choice:
> * Easier administration (install/configuration/upgrade), which is also true
> for addons/dependencies (starting with PostGIS, but also GEOS, GDAL, PL/R);
> * Better performance [4];
>
On 12/02/15 12:38, Mathieu Basille wrote:
[...]
[1] Start of the thread here:
http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-users/2015-February/040120.html
[...]
http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-users/2015-February/040134.html
[...]
* About usage being mostly read: this will be true for mos
On 12/02/15 12:38, Mathieu Basille wrote:
Thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread, either on the
PostGIS [1] or the PostgreSQL [2] mailing lists. I will try to
summarize everything in this message, which I will actually post on
both lists to give an update to everyone. I hope it can b
Thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread, either on the PostGIS
[1] or the PostgreSQL [2] mailing lists. I will try to summarize everything
in this message, which I will actually post on both lists to give an update
to everyone. I hope it can be useful for other people interested. Pleas
I am currently planning to set up a PostgreSQL + PostGIS instance for my
lab. Turns out I believe this would be useful for the whole center, so
that I'm now considering setting up the server for everyone—if interest
is shared of course. At the moment, I am however struggling with what
would be req
On 11/02/15 13:52, Mathieu Basille wrote:
Dear PostgreSQL users,
I am posting here a question that I initially asked on the PostGIS
list [1], where I was advised to try here too (I will keep both lists
updated about the developments on this issue).
I am currently planning to set up a Postgre
Responses in-line:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:52:41 -0500
Mathieu Basille wrote:
>
> I am posting here a question that I initially asked on the PostGIS list
> [1], where I was advised to try here too (I will keep both lists updated
> about the developments on this issue).
>
> I am currently plan
Dear PostgreSQL users,
I am posting here a question that I initially asked on the PostGIS list
[1], where I was advised to try here too (I will keep both lists updated
about the developments on this issue).
I am currently planning to set up a PostgreSQL + PostGIS instance for my
lab. Turns o
Hi All;
We're talking with a HW / Data Center company about scaling up our DB
servers... Below are some questions they asked relaed to moving to SSD's
or maybe a Fusion IO drive.
Anyone have any thoughts, specifically on the queue depth question?
Thanks in advance...
/So our question I thi
Greg Smith wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Greg Smith wrote:
> >
> >> Given what you've said about your budget here, I suspect that you're
> >> heading toward either 3ware or LSI and all SATA drives. I wouldn't
> >> expect that big of a performance difference between the two with only 8
>
A B wrote:
Don't put SAS drives on a 3ware controller. They say that works now, but
they haven't really gotten it right yet--their controllers are still only
good with SATA drives.
How bad will it be with SAS drives? Is there so little performance
gain witn 3ware+SAS?
The concern isn
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Greg Smith wrote:
Given what you've said about your budget here, I suspect that you're
heading toward either 3ware or LSI and all SATA drives. I wouldn't
expect that big of a performance difference between the two with only 8
drives on there. If you had 24, the 3ware
John R Pierce wrote:
Vick Khera wrote:
Interesting... same advice goes for Adaptec + FreeBSD. I guess
Adaptec + !Windows == bad?
i've never liked adaptec, windows or not.
Yeah, I was trying to be as nice as possible since I don't run Windows
anymore, and for all I know their cards are f
Vick Khera wrote:
Interesting... same advice goes for Adaptec + FreeBSD. I guess
Adaptec + !Windows == bad?
i've never liked adaptec, windows or not. bunches of their too-popular
SCSI cards even way back in the old days of 10-20MB/sec SCSI had sketchy
electrical specs on the SCSI bus an
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
> Don't put an Adaptec card into a Linux system. They don't take that OS
> nearly as seriously as your other choices here.
>
Interesting... same advice goes for Adaptec + FreeBSD. I guess
Adaptec + !Windows == bad?
--
Sent via pgsql-general m
Greg Smith wrote:
> Given what you've said about your budget here, I suspect that you're
> heading toward either 3ware or LSI and all SATA drives. I wouldn't
> expect that big of a performance difference between the two with only 8
> drives on there. If you had 24, the 3ware controller would l
> Don't put SAS drives on a 3ware controller. They say that works now, but
> they haven't really gotten it right yet--their controllers are still only
> good with SATA drives.
How bad will it be with SAS drives? Is there so little performance
gain witn 3ware+SAS?
Scott Marlowe stated in earlier
A B wrote:
3Ware SAS 9690SA-8i 512 MB BBU
Adaptec SAS Raid 5805 256 MB BBU
LSI MegaRaid SAS 8708 128 MB BBU
When it comes to choosing the acctual discs I guess this would be
appropriate to use:
"other data": Barracda ES.2 1000 GB (SATA) to get a a good GB/$ ratio.
OS/xlog : Barracuda ES.2 500
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 3:34 AM, A B wrote:
> 3Ware SAS 9690SA-8i 512 MB BBU
> Adaptec SAS Raid 5805 256 MB BBU
> LSI MegaRaid SAS 8708 128 MB BBU
>
When faced with the choice of Adaptec vs. anything else, I choose
anything else. When faced with the choice of LSI vs anything else, I
look really
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 1:34 AM, A B wrote:
> Hello.
>
> It's time to get new hardware for a server that will run both
> PostgreSQL and Apache.
> The workload will be similar to that of your standard "PHP forum"
> (most selects and logging of stuff that has been read)
>
> The modell I'm looking a
Hello.
It's time to get new hardware for a server that will run both
PostgreSQL and Apache.
The workload will be similar to that of your standard "PHP forum"
(most selects and logging of stuff that has been read)
The modell I'm looking at right now is
2x Xeon E5520 2,26 GHz 8 MB (8 cores in tot
-Original Message-
From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-
> "htop" is really nice too. http://htop.sourceforge.net/
> (disclaimer - I did not write it)
I like atop better
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 1:49 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
>> std pik wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello all..
>>> I'm using PostgreSQL 8.3..
>>> How can I get information about the hardware utilization:
>>> - CPU usage.
>>> - Disk space.
>>>
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 2:10 PM, dennis jenkins
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Scott Marlowe
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 1:49 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
>>> std pik wrote:
Hello all..
I'm using PostgreSQL 8.3..
How can I get information about the hardware ut
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 1:49 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> std pik wrote:
>>
>> Hello all..
>> I'm using PostgreSQL 8.3..
>> How can I get information about the hardware utilization:
>> - CPU usage.
>> - Disk space.
>> - Memory allocation.
>>
>
>
> what operating system are you on?
std pik wrote:
Hello all..
I'm using PostgreSQL 8.3..
How can I get information about the hardware utilization:
- CPU usage.
- Disk space.
- Memory allocation.
what operating system are you on? If its Linux or some flavor of Unix,
I'd use a combination of ps(1), df(1
Hello all..
I'm using PostgreSQL 8.3..
How can I get information about the hardware utilization:
- CPU usage.
- Disk space.
- Memory allocation.
thank you.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.p
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, Phoenix Kiula wrote:
Just to confirm -- why do you say "[Opteron] will have 2X as many
disks"? In the dual-Opteron setup above I have 2 hard disks with
RAID1, whereas in the single-Xeon quad-core setup I have 4 disks with
RAID 10.
What I was trying to suggest was that the
On 9/12/07, Phoenix Kiula <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just to confirm -- why do you say "[Opteron] will have 2X as many
> disks"? In the dual-Opteron setup above I have 2 hard disks with
> RAID1, whereas in the single-Xeon quad-core setup I have 4 disks with
> RAID 10.
He didn't say that. Read hi
On 12/09/2007, Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, Phoenix Kiula wrote:
>
> > Scenario 1, SATAII:
> > - Server: Asus RS120-E4/PA4 Dedicated Server
> > - CPU: Single -- Intel Quad Core Xeon Processor x3210 Processor 2.13Ghz
> > - RAM: 4Gb DDR2 Memory 667Mhz
> > - Hard disk:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, Phoenix Kiula wrote:
Scenario 1, SATAII:
- Server: Asus RS120-E4/PA4 Dedicated Server
- CPU: Single -- Intel Quad Core Xeon Processor x3210 Processor 2.13Ghz
- RAM: 4Gb DDR2 Memory 667Mhz
- Hard disk: 4 x Seagate ES SATAII HardDrive 7200RPM 250Gb (Total 500Gb)
- Raid 10: 3Wa
On 9/11/07, Phoenix Kiula <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks Greg.
> Scenario 1, SATAII:
>
> - Server: Asus RS120-E4/PA4 Dedicated Server
> - CPU: Single -- Intel Quad Core Xeon Processor x3210 Processor 2.13Ghz
> - RAM: 4Gb DDR2 Memory 667Mhz
> - Hard disk: 4 x Seagate ES SATAII HardDrive 7200RPM
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/11/07 12:02, Phoenix Kiula wrote:
> On 12/09/2007, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> How (on average) large are the records you need to insert, and how
>> evenly spread across the 24 hour day do the inserts occur?
>
>
> There will be ar
On 12/09/2007, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How (on average) large are the records you need to insert, and how
> evenly spread across the 24 hour day do the inserts occur?
There will be around 15,000 inserts in a day. Each insert will have
several TEXT columns, so it is difficult to p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/11/07 11:26, Phoenix Kiula wrote:
> Thanks Greg.
>
>
>> You're not going to get a particularly useful answer here without giving
>> some specifics about the two disk controllers you're comparing, how much
>> cache they have, and whether they in
>Scenario 1, SATAII:
>
>- Server: Asus RS120-E4/PA4 Dedicated Server
>- CPU: Single -- Intel Quad Core Xeon Processor x3210 Processor 2.13Ghz
>- RAM: 4Gb DDR2 Memory 667Mhz
>- Hard disk: 4 x Seagate ES SATAII HardDrive 7200RPM 250Gb (Total 500Gb)
>- Raid 10: 3Ware Raid 9650SE: http://www.acnc.com/0
Thanks Greg.
> You're not going to get a particularly useful answer here without giving
> some specifics about the two disk controllers you're comparing, how much
> cache they have, and whether they include a battery backup.
>
Scenario 1, SATAII:
- Server: Asus RS120-E4/PA4 Dedicated Server
-
>The point people are trying to make to you is that the differences between
>RAID controllers can be as big as that between RAID architectures in cases
>like yours. Which controller you're using and how the cache is setup can
>have a larger impact on INSERT performance than how many/what type o
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, Phoenix Kiula wrote:
I'll have a raid controller in both scenarios, but which RAID should
be better: RAID1 or RAID10?
The point people are trying to make to you is that the differences between
RAID controllers can be as big as that between RAID architectures in cases
lik
>This one will be a hugely INSERT thing, very low on UPDATEs. The
>INSERTS will have many TEXT fields as they are free form data. So the
>database will grow very fast. Size will grow pretty fast too.
>> You should use a hardware raid controller with battery backup write cache
>> (write cache shoul
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/11/07 07:55, Phoenix Kiula wrote:
> On 11/09/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It depends what you want to do with your database.
>>
>> Do you have many reads (select) or a lot of writes (update,insert) ?
>
>
> This one will
On 11/09/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It depends what you want to do with your database.
>
> Do you have many reads (select) or a lot of writes (update,insert) ?
This one will be a hugely INSERT thing, very low on UPDATEs. The
INSERTS will have many TEXT fields as they are
have ?
How big is your database, tables ... ?
Greetings,
-Franz
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Phoenix Kiula
Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. September 2007 13:49
An: Postgres General
Betreff: [GENERAL] Hardware recommendation: which
Hello
We're trying to look for the most optimal config for a heavy duty
production server, and the following two are falling in the same price
range from our supplier:
Option 1:
2 x 300GB SCSI (10k rpm) with SAS and RAID 1
Option 2:
4 x 300GB SATA2 (7200 rpm, server grade) with RAID 10
I am not
On 3/1/07, Alan Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Does anyone have anything specifically good or bad to say about the LSI
MegaRaid 8480e, in particular RAID-10 performance, and performance and
stability under Linux or any problems with the battery-backed cache option?
I'm building a new databas
Does anyone have anything specifically good or bad to say about the LSI
MegaRaid 8480e, in particular RAID-10 performance, and performance and
stability under Linux or any problems with the battery-backed cache option?
I'm building a new database server and planning to hook one of these up to
a
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Walter Vaughan wrote:
CPUs ? The more CPUs the better, however if your database does not use many
complex functions your money is best spent on a better disk subsystem. Also,
avoid Intel Xeon processors with PostgreSQL as there is a problem with the
context switching in t
On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 10:33, Lars Heidieker wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> On 6 Feb 2007, at 15:59, Walter Vaughan wrote:
>
> > I need to purchase a new server to put posgresql on that will be
> > acting as the DBMS server for Apache ofBiz soon. While googling
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6 Feb 2007, at 15:59, Walter Vaughan wrote:
I need to purchase a new server to put posgresql on that will be
acting as the DBMS server for Apache ofBiz soon. While googling
around for performance tweaks I saw this at http://revsys.com/
writi
On 06.02.2007, at 08:59, Walter Vaughan wrote:
Is this still true in regards to Xeon's? I was looking at a server
with Quad Core Xeon 2 5335 @ 2.0GHz.
No, it's not true anymore. See
http://tweakers.net/reviews/657/1
for an interesting comparison.
cug
---(end of bro
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 10:59:21AM -0500, Walter Vaughan wrote:
>
> Is this still true in regards to Xeon's? I was looking at a server with
> Quad Core Xeon 2 5335 @ 2.0GHz.
Multi-core Xeons are not as affected, and are somewhat different
"under the hood". So no, you're probably ok there.
> A
I need to purchase a new server to put posgresql on that will be acting as the
DBMS server for Apache ofBiz soon. While googling around for performance tweaks
I saw this at http://revsys.com/writings/postgresql-performance.html
CPUs — The more CPUs the better, however if your database does not
Rick Gigger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
To make a long story short lets just say that I had a bit of a
hardware failure recently.
If I got an error like this when trying to dump a db from the mangled
data directory is it safe to say it's totally hosed or is there some
chance of recovery?
Why
I could have my developer do this if it would be useful to someone
else. But in general I think my time would be much better served
fixing my backup situation and monitoring them so that this CAN'T
happen again. It shouldn't have happened this time.
On Oct 19, 2006, at 8:35 AM, Ray Stell
Rick Gigger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> To make a long story short lets just say that I had a bit of a
> hardware failure recently.
>
> If I got an error like this when trying to dump a db from the mangled
> data directory is it safe to say it's totally hosed or is there some
> chance of recove
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 06:14:46 -0600, Rick Gigger wrote:
> I think we've got it figure out though. We were able to patch up the
> db enough to extract the data with some help from google and old postings
> from Tom.
It would be really great if you put down the specifics of what you
googled/old post
Rick Gigger wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/19/06 00:46, Rick Gigger wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 10/18/06 23:52, Rick Gigger wrote:
Rick Gigger wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 10/18/06 19:57, Rick Gigger wrote:
[snip]
Not much that is useful.
Ron Johnson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/19/06 00:46, Rick Gigger wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 10/18/06 23:52, Rick Gigger wrote:
Rick Gigger wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 10/18/06 19:57, Rick Gigger wrote:
[snip]
Not much that is useful. I think this is a li
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/19/06 00:46, Rick Gigger wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>>
>> On 10/18/06 23:52, Rick Gigger wrote:
>>> Rick Gigger wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> On 10/18/06 19:57, Rick Gigger wrote:
[snip]
> Not much that is useful. I think this is a
Ron Johnson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/18/06 23:52, Rick Gigger wrote:
Rick Gigger wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/18/06 19:57, Rick Gigger wrote:
To make a long story short lets just say that I had a bit of a har
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/18/06 23:52, Rick Gigger wrote:
> Rick Gigger wrote:
>> Ron Johnson wrote:
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On 10/18/06 19:57, Rick Gigger wrote:
To make a long story short lets just say that I had a bit of a har
Rick Gigger wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/18/06 19:57, Rick Gigger wrote:
To make a long story short lets just say that I had a bit of a hardware
failure recently.
If I got an error like this when trying to dump a db from the mangled
data direct
Ron Johnson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/18/06 19:57, Rick Gigger wrote:
To make a long story short lets just say that I had a bit of a hardware
failure recently.
If I got an error like this when trying to dump a db from the mangled
data directory is it safe to sa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/18/06 19:57, Rick Gigger wrote:
> To make a long story short lets just say that I had a bit of a hardware
> failure recently.
>
> If I got an error like this when trying to dump a db from the mangled
> data directory is it safe to say it's total
To make a long story short lets just say that I had a bit of a
hardware failure recently.
If I got an error like this when trying to dump a db from the mangled
data directory is it safe to say it's totally hosed or is there some
chance of recovery?
pg_dump: ERROR: could not open relation
A... good point.Why oh why does tyan have two boards with the same prefix ;)!!!AlexOn 4/15/06, Guy Rouillier <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Alex Turner wrote:> Raid 5 on the 9550SX is supposed to be significantly better than the
> 9500 series.>> I would be carefull of benchmarks listed out there.
I have the time to do it, but not the $$s ;)AlexOn 4/15/06, Francisco Reyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:Alex Turner writes:> Suggests that the 9550SX is at least competitive with the others.
Thanks for the links.> I know I like the 3ware/AMCC cards because of their very good RAID 10> performance.Rai
Alex Turner writes:
Suggests that the 9550SX is at least competitive with the others.
Thanks for the links.
I know I like the 3ware/AMCC cards because of their very good RAID 10
performance.
Raid 10 is what I used on my last server and likely what I will use on the
next.
I wish we coul
Alex Turner wrote:
> Raid 5 on the 9550SX is supposed to be significantly better than the
> 9500 series.
>
> I would be carefull of benchmarks listed out there. For instance,
> whilst looking for supporting material, I came cross this gem:
>
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/print_content.asp?id=9550s
Raid 5 on the 9550SX is supposed to be significantly better than the 9500 series.I would be carefull of benchmarks listed out there. For instance, whilst looking for supporting material, I came cross this gem:
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/print_content.asp?id=9550sx4lp&cookie%5Ftest=1
They claim th
Merlin Moncure writes:
there are reasons to go with raid 5 or other raids. where I work we
often do 14 drive raid 6 plus 1 hot swap on a 15 drive tray.
Raid 5 is different from raid 6 To say that there are times it's ok to
use RAID 5 and then say you use raid 6... well... doesn't really s
Merlin Moncure writes:
escalade is a fairly full featured raid controller for the price.
consider it the ford taurus of raid controllers, it's functional and
practical but not sexy. Their S line is not native sata but operates
over a pata->sata bridge. Stay away from raid 5.
Do you know if
On Wed, 2006-04-12 at 13:53, Ted Byers wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Scott Marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > There have been NUMEROUS discussions of RAID-5 versus RAID 1+0 in the
> > perform group in the last year or two. Short version:
> >
> Interesting.
SNIP
> This questio
On 4/12/06, Ted Byers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Merlin Moncure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Janning Vygen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 02:53:01PM -0400, Ted Byers wrote:
I take it that "RAID 1+0" refers to a combination of Raid 1 and RAID 0.
What about RAID 10? I am curious because RAID 10 has come out since the
last time I took a look at RAID technology. I am not sure wh
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 02:53:01PM -0400, Ted Byers wrote:
> I take it that "RAID 1+0" refers to a combination of Raid 1 and RAID 0.
> What about RAID 10? I am curious because RAID 10 has come out since the
> last time I took a look at RAID technology. I am not sure what it actually
> does dif
- Original Message -
From: "Scott Marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ted Byers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Merlin Moncure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Janning Vygen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
"pgsql general"
Sent: Wednesda
On Wed, 2006-04-12 at 13:10, Ted Byers wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Merlin Moncure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Janning Vygen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:31 PM
>
- Original Message -
From: "Merlin Moncure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Janning Vygen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:31 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Hardware related question: 3ware 9500S
[snip]
> - I want to know if 3ware
Thanks for your fast reply.
Am Mittwoch, 12. April 2006 18:31 schrieb Merlin Moncure:
> On 4/12/06, Janning Vygen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > disk 1: OS, tablespace
> > disk 2: indices, WAL, Logfiles
> > - Does my partitioning make sense?
>
> with raid 10 all four drives will appear as
On 4/12/06, Janning Vygen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> disk 1: OS, tablespace
> disk 2: indices, WAL, Logfiles
> - Does my partitioning make sense?
with raid 10 all four drives will appear as a single physical device
shared by all. I'm personally not a big fan of logical partitioning
of a s
Hi,
i don't know much about hard disks and raid controllers but often there is
some discussion about which raid controller rocks and which sucks. my hosting
company offers me a raid 10 with 4 serial-ata disks. They will use a "3ware
4-Port-RAID-Controller 9500S"
More than 4 disks are not possi
Bjørn T Johansen wrote:
I an planning to make a small Windows application and need a nice database
I am used to using PostgreSQL
under Linux and I am thinking about using this under Windows but how much
resources does it use under Windows?
The server will be running on the workstation alon
Qingqing Zhou wrote:
> ""Bjørn T Johansen"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>> I an planning to make a small Windows application and need a nice
>> database I am used to using PostgreSQL
>> under Linux and I am thinking about using this under Windows but how much
>> resources does it use under Wind
""Bj?rn T Johansen"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>I an planning to make a small Windows application and need a nice
>database I am used to using PostgreSQL
> under Linux and I am thinking about using this under Windows but how much
> resources does it use under Windows?
> The server will be ru
I an planning to make a small Windows application and need a nice database
I am used to using PostgreSQL
under Linux and I am thinking about using this under Windows but how much
resources does it use under Windows?
The server will be running on the workstation along with the Windows
applica
Hello everybody, i really need to know hardware requirements for installing
PostgreSQL 8.0.3.
I'm in a database migration project and it is important to work with the
appropiate hardware.
DB must work in windows. There are 50 tables aprox and data size is near 6
GB. Thank for your answers.
Rafa
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 09:20:00AM +0200, Rafael Montoya wrote:
> Ok, there are about 15 concurrent clients inserting and updating data, and
> 20 concurrent clients only consulting.
> I dont need all data in ram, of course, hehe, but i really have no idea
> what's the minimum of ram for having f
am 29.09.2005, um 9:20:00 +0200 mailte Rafael Montoya folgendes:
> Ok, there are about 15 concurrent clients inserting and updating data, and
> 20 concurrent clients only consulting.
> I dont need all data in ram, of course, hehe, but i really have no idea
> what's the minimum of ram for havin
afael Montoya
From: Ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Rafael Montoya" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Hardware requirements
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 23:30:06 -0700
Unless you need all that data in ram (and you probably don't), then
Unless you need all that data in ram (and you probably don't), then
any machine should be capable. The real questions are, how many
concurrent clients? How static is the data? What is your query
complexity?
On Sep 28, 2005, at 11:08 PM, Rafael Montoya wrote:
Hello everybody, i really need
Hello everybody, i really need to know hardware requirements for installing
PostgreSQL 8.0.3.
I'm in a database migration project and it is important to work with the
appropiate hardware.
DB must work in windows. There are 50 tables aprox and data size is near 6
GB. Thank for your answers.
Rafa
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
