Lonni J Friedman wrote:
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:28:22 -0500, Vivek Khera wrote:
"a" == alex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
a> We are currently looking at Dell / HP
a> but the questions is
a> - how many processors (2 or 4)
a> - do we gain with 4 cpus if we probably never have a few users connected
a>
On Dec 22, 2004, at 1:09 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
I've use the Dell PERC 4DC and had VERY good performance from it. IT's
the late model U320 LSI MegaRAID and runs great. I do remember that
the
2650 and few other Dells had the serverworks chipset in them that
caused
a lot of context switches in
On Dec 22, 2004, at 12:41 PM, Lonni J Friedman wrote:
get "expected" performance from those boxes. They seem to do
something to the RAID controllers to make them not work as fast as one
would expect the equivalent name-brand part (eg, LSI RAID card or
Adaptec RAID card) and similar disk drives.
Ha
On Wed, 2004-12-22 at 11:41, Lonni J Friedman wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:28:22 -0500, Vivek Khera wrote:
> > > "a" == alex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > a> We are currently looking at Dell / HP
> > a> but the questions is
> >
> > a> - how many processors (2 or 4)
> > a> - do we g
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:28:22 -0500, Vivek Khera wrote:
> > "a" == alex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> a> We are currently looking at Dell / HP
> a> but the questions is
>
> a> - how many processors (2 or 4)
> a> - do we gain with 4 cpus if we probably never have a few users connected
> a>
> "a" == alex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
a> We are currently looking at Dell / HP
a> but the questions is
a> - how many processors (2 or 4)
a> - do we gain with 4 cpus if we probably never have a few users connected
a> - what processors are recommended Opteron / Xeon / Itanium
a> - how mu
On Thu, 2004-12-16 at 19:10, Alex wrote:
> I actually am more interested to hear if there are an recommended
> systems or setups.
> Also with regard to 2/4 CPUs or 32/64 bit etc.
Sorry to have gotten off on a tangent there. Posts in the last year or
so to the -performance mailing list have show
Alex wrote:
The comment about HW vendor was regarding Raid configuration not the
software.
My apologies, misread your post.
Geoffrey wrote:
Alex wrote:
Hmm...
I read that Raid5 is suggested over Raid1. Also HW vendors told us that.
Php :-) is not an option and I dont believe Perl is a bottleneck
We use perl for the heavy batch jobs, the web interface is written using
JSP / applets.
If we would change these then it would be Java or C. But all the heavy
stuff is handled by Stored Procedures so I dont see a real need for a
change.
I actually am more interested to hear if there are an rec
The comment about HW vendor was regarding Raid configuration not the
software.
Geoffrey wrote:
Alex wrote:
Hmm...
I read that Raid5 is suggested over Raid1. Also HW vendors told us that.
Php :-) is not an option and I dont believe Perl is a bottleneck as
well.
Why would your HW vendor be stipul
Quoting Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, 2004-12-16 at 06:39, Michael Ben-Nes wrote:
> > I think and please correct me that Postgres loves RAM, the more the
> better.
> >
> > Any way RAID5 is awful with writing, go with RAID1 ( mirroring )
>
> With battery backed cache and a large a
Alex wrote:
Hmm...
I read that Raid5 is suggested over Raid1. Also HW vendors told us that.
Php :-) is not an option and I dont believe Perl is a bottleneck as well.
Why would your HW vendor be stipulating the software you use?
--
Until later, Geoffrey
---(end of broadcast)-
On Thu, 2004-12-16 at 06:39, Michael Ben-Nes wrote:
> I think and please correct me that Postgres loves RAM, the more the better.
>
> Any way RAID5 is awful with writing, go with RAID1 ( mirroring )
With battery backed cache and a large array, RAID 5 is quite fast, even
with writes. Plus with a
Hmm...
I read that Raid5 is suggested over Raid1. Also HW vendors told us that.
Php :-) is not an option and I dont believe Perl is a bottleneck as well.
Michael Ben-Nes wrote:
I think and please correct me that Postgres loves RAM, the more the
better.
Any way RAID5 is awful with writing, go wit
Michael Ben-Nes wrote:
I think and please correct me that Postgres loves RAM, the more the better.
Certainly for disk-cache.
Any way RAID5 is awful with writing, go with RAID1 ( mirroring )
Raid 10 seems to be the consensus if you have enough disks. See the
archives of the performance list for pl
Michael Ben-Nes wrote:
I think and please correct me that Postgres loves RAM, the more the better.
Any way RAID5 is awful with writing, go with RAID1 ( mirroring )
I use Debian Sarge and im very happy.
Perl is very slow, maybe you can use PHP ?
I find perl perfectly acceptable. I would appreciate
I think and please correct me that Postgres loves RAM, the more the better.
Any way RAID5 is awful with writing, go with RAID1 ( mirroring )
I use Debian Sarge and im very happy.
Perl is very slow, maybe you can use PHP ?
Alex wrote:
Hi,
we are planning to upgrade our servers but deciding on the r
Hi,
we are planning to upgrade our servers but deciding on the right
configuration seems to be quite difficult.
As for the system. About 50 tables, 20M records and growing about
500k-1m per month.
The systems mostly loads data from files (perl batch jobs). And
generates client files. Jobs gener
18 matches
Mail list logo
