Re: system usage stats (Was: Re: Why Not MySQL? ) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Mitch Vincent
Subject Re: system usage stats (Was: Re: Why Not MySQL? )
Date
Msg-id 041101bfb5f2$4e9899c0$4100000a@venux.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: system usage stats (Was: Re: Why Not MySQL? )  ("Mitch Vincent" <mitch@huntsvilleal.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Production 10k, development 7.2k RPM :-)

- Mitch

----- Original Message -----
From: Don Baccus <dhogaza@pacifier.com>
To: Ross J. Reedstrom <reedstrm@wallace.ece.rice.edu>; Tom Lane
<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: system usage stats (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Why Not MySQL? )


> At 11:03 AM 5/4/00 -0500, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:
>
> >So, 6.5.3 is running on Ultra 160 drives, with the controller throttled
to
> >80 MB/s, and 7.0 is running on Ultra 2 drives, which also has a
controller
> >maximum of 80 MB/s.  However, the sustained transfer speed of the drives
> >themselves are what should be limiting: if they're all relatively modern
> >drives, 20MB/s is typical, so neither config will max out the controller.
> >(2 drives each, right?)
>
> Not to mention that seek times make it very difficult to max out
> a controller even if theoretically possible with four drives, unless
> you're striping and doing large transfers or lookaheads, etc.
>
> If one's got 10K drives and the other 7.2K drives, you'll certainly
> see a difference in transfer rate and seek time.
>
> So ... what are the disk configurations?
>
>
>
> - Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com>
>   Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
>   Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
>   http://donb.photo.net.
>



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_group_name_index corrupt?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_group_name_index corrupt?