Re: UltraSPARC versus AMD - Slowaris - Mailing list pgsql-general

Maybe that's why used Sun E10ks with 12 CPUs and 12 gig of ram are going
for $5995 AND still not selling on ebay...

On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 15:27, Mohan, Ross wrote:
> Richly deserved IMNSHO. my current employer was bilked for many many months
> for a piece of crap E10K that barely outperforms a couple of AMD chips. But
> at many, many times the price. We finally upgraded/migrated to AIX/g5 chips
> and run what was run on 20 cpus on 2.
>
> If Sun pulls out of its slow Icarus dive to near-certain death, it'll be
> a miracle. ( And, I guess, that'd be "a good thing"; always nice to have a
> miracle. )
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of
Richard_D_Levine@raytheon.com
> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 3:12 PM
> To: mmiranda@americatel.com.sv
> Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org; pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] UltraSPARC versus AMD
>
>
> Sun's stock was at $65.00 in late 2000 and has rocketed to $3.50.  I think somebody else besides us noticed too.
>
> pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org wrote on 04/26/2005 01:12:49 PM:
>
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org
> > > [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Brent Wood
> > > Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 8:20 PM
> > > To: Uwe C. Schroeder
> > > Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> > > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] UltraSPARC versus AMD
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, 23 Apr 2005, Uwe C. Schroeder wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well, you overlook one thing there. SUN has always has a
> > > really good I/O
> > > > performance - something far from negligible for a database
> > > application.
> >
> > Am i dreaming?,
> > Solaris really good I/O performance?
> >
> > Have your heard of slowlaris?
> >
> > May be you mean hardware performance, combined  with a great OS (BSD
> > or
> > Linux)
> >
> > I had to "upgrade" many Sunfire 280 (running slowlaris [8|9]) to BSD
> because
> > of poor DB performance, after the upgrade, all run flawlessly. I only
> > wish a had made this switch before Just my $0.02
> >
> >
> > > > A lot of the PC systems lack that kind of I/O thruput. Just
> > > > compare a simple P4 with ATAPI drives to the same P4
> > > with 320 SCSI drives
> > > > - the speed difference, particularly using any *nix, is
> > > > surprisingly significant and easily visible with the bare eye.
> >
> > We are talking about server or pc?, we run postgres on several HP
> > dl380
> (5i
> > SCSI controller) with great performance
> >
> > > > There is a reason why a lot of the financial/insurance
> > > institutions (having a
> > > > lot of transactions in their DB applications) use either
> > > IBM mainframes or
> > > > SUN E10k's :-)
> > > > Personally I think a weaker processor with top of the line
> > > I/O will perform
> > > > better for DB apps than the fastest processor with crappy I/O.
> > > >
> > > > i guess the "my $0.02" is in order here :-)
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > i totally agree with this
> > ---
> > Miguel
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of
> > broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if
> your
> >       joining column's datatypes do not match
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
>                http://archives.postgresql.org
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
>     (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)