Re: suggestions for postgresql setup on Dell 2950 , PERC6i controller - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From justin
Subject Re: suggestions for postgresql setup on Dell 2950 , PERC6i controller
Date
Msg-id 498C5FD6.1060608@emproshunts.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: suggestions for postgresql setup on Dell 2950 , PERC6i controller  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
List pgsql-performance
Bruce Momjian wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:200902061527.n16FREp25859@momjian.us" type="cite"><pre wrap="">Matt Burke
wrote:</pre><blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">
 
we'd have no choice other than replacing the server+shelf+disks.

I want to see just how much better a high-end Areca/Adaptec controller
is, but I just don't think I can get approval for a ?1000 card "because
some guy on the internet said the PERC sucks". Would that same person
say it sucked if it came in Areca packaging? Am I listening to the
advice of a professional, or a fanboy?   </pre></blockquote><pre wrap="">
The experiences I have heard is that Dell looks at server hardware in
the same way they look at their consumer gear, "If I put in a cheaper
part, how much will it cost Dell to warranty replace it".  Sorry, but I
don't look at my performance or downtime in the same way Dell does.  ;-) </pre></blockquote> It always boils down to
money. To communicate to the ones controlling the purse strings talk dollar bills.  To get what one wants from the
pursestring holders give examples like this. <br /> Buying cheap hardware can result in a complete shut down resulting
inlost sales and/or non productive labor being spent.  <br /><br /> Example would be a company generates 100 sales
ordersan hour average $100 = $10,000 if the server is down for 8 hours 1 business day thats $80,000 lost in business. 
nowlets throw in labor average hourly rate lets say $15.00 an hour for 10 people = $150.00 for 8 hours = $1200 in lost
labor. Now throw in overtime to get caught up  $1800  total labor cost  = $3000<br /><br /> The $200 to $300 saved on
thecard  was a good decision :-(<br /><br /> Now the argument can be made hardware failures are low so that goes out
thedoor<br /><br /> Your next best argument is showing the waste in lost productivity.  Lets say  because of the cheap
hardwarepurchased the users must sit idle  3 seconds per transactions  times 100 transactions per day = 300 seconds
lostX 10 people = 3000 Seconds per day X 235 working days  = 705000/60/60 = 196 hours lost per year  times 3years for
averagelife span of the server = 588 hours X  average pay rate $15 = $8820.00 lost labor<br /><br /> Again smart
thinking. <br /><br /> There are all kind of ways to win these arguments to push for higher quality hardware.  

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz
Date:
Subject: Re: Postgres not willing to use an index?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Postgres not willing to use an index?