Fwd: [PERFORM] Multiple disks: RAID 5 or PG Cluster

2005-06-17 Thread Yves Vindevogel
BTW, tnx for the opinion ... I forgot to cc list ... Begin forwarded message: From: Yves Vindevogel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri 17 Jun 2005 23:29:32 CEST To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Multiple disks: RAID 5 or PG Cluster Ok, striping is a good option ... I'll tell you why I do

Fwd: [PERFORM] Multiple disks: RAID 5 or PG Cluster

2005-06-17 Thread Yves Vindevogel
Ok, I will hate that day, but it's only 6 months Begin forwarded message: From: Vivek Khera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri 17 Jun 2005 23:26:43 CEST To: Yves Vindevogel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Multiple disks: RAID 5 or PG Cluster On Jun 17, 2005, at 5:24 PM, Yves Vindevogel wr

Re: [PERFORM] Multiple disks: RAID 5 or PG Cluster

2005-06-17 Thread mudfoot
If you truly do not care about data protection -- either from drive loss or from sudden power failure, or anything else -- and just want to get the fastest possible performance, then do RAID 0 (striping). It may be faster to do that with software RAID on the host than with a special RAID controlle

Re: [PERFORM] Multiple disks: RAID 5 or PG Cluster

2005-06-17 Thread Vivek Khera
On Jun 17, 2005, at 3:34 PM, Yves Vindevogel wrote:We are looking to build a new machine for a big PG database. We were wondering if a machine with 5 scsi-disks would perform better if we use a hardware raid 5 controller or if we would go for the clustering in PG. If we cluster in PG, do we have re

[PERFORM] Multiple disks: RAID 5 or PG Cluster

2005-06-17 Thread Yves Vindevogel
Hi, We are looking to build a new machine for a big PG database. We were wondering if a machine with 5 scsi-disks would perform better if we use a hardware raid 5 controller or if we would go for the clustering in PG. If we cluster in PG, do we have redundancy on the data like in a RAID 5 ? First

Re: [PERFORM] Needed: Simplified guide to optimal memory

2005-06-17 Thread Josh Berkus
Todd, > I'm going only on what my engineers are telling me, but they say > upgrading breaks a lot of source code with some SQL commands that are > a pain to hunt down and kill. Not sure if that's true, but that's > what I'm told. Depends on your app, but certainly that can be true. Oddly, 7.2 ->

Re: [PERFORM] could not send data to client:

2005-06-17 Thread Merlin Moncure
Justin wrote: I have 6 Windows PC in a test environment accessing a very small Postgres DB on a 2003 Server.  The PC's access the database with a cobol app via ODBC.  3 of the PC's operate very efficiently and quickly.  3 of them do not.  The 3 that do not are all new Dell XP Pro with SP2.  They