At 11:02 AM 12/7/2006, Gene wrote:
I'm building a SuperServer 6035B server (16 scsi drives). My schema
has basically two large tables (million+ per day) each which are
partitioned daily, and queried independently of each other. Would
you recommend a raid1 system partition and 14 drives in a rai
I'm building a SuperServer 6035B server (16 scsi drives). My schema has
basically two large tables (million+ per day) each which are partitioned
daily, and queried independently of each other. Would you recommend a raid1
system partition and 14 drives in a raid 10 or should i create separate
parti
One thing that is clear from what you've posted thus far is that you
are going to needmore HDs if you want to have any chance of fully
utilizing your Areca HW.
Do you know off hand where I might find a chassis that can fit 24[+]
drives? The last chassis we ordered was through Supermicro, and t
At 03:37 AM 12/7/2006, Brian Wipf wrote:
On 6-Dec-06, at 5:26 PM, Ron wrote:
All this stuff is so leading edge that it is far from clear what
the RW performance of DBMS based on these components will be
without extensive testing of =your= app under =your= workload.
I want the best performance
On 6-Dec-06, at 5:26 PM, Ron wrote:
At 06:40 PM 12/6/2006, Brian Wipf wrote:
I appreciate your suggestions, Ron. And that helps answer my question
on processor selection for our next box; I wasn't sure if the lower
MHz speed of the Kentsfield compared to the Woodcrest but with double
the cores w
At 06:40 PM 12/6/2006, Brian Wipf wrote:
I appreciate your suggestions, Ron. And that helps answer my question
on processor selection for our next box; I wasn't sure if the lower
MHz speed of the Kentsfield compared to the Woodcrest but with double
the cores would be better for us overall or not.
I appreciate your suggestions, Ron. And that helps answer my question
on processor selection for our next box; I wasn't sure if the lower
MHz speed of the Kentsfield compared to the Woodcrest but with double
the cores would be better for us overall or not.
On 6-Dec-06, at 4:25 PM, Ron wrote
The 1100 series is PCI-X based. The 1200 series is PCI-E x8
based. Apples and oranges.
I still think Luke Lonergan or Josh Berkus may have some interesting
ideas regarding possible OS and SW optimizations.
WD1500ADFDs are each good for ~90MBps read and ~60MBps write ASTR.
That means your 16
On 6-Dec-06, at 2:47 PM, Brian Wipf wrote:
Hmmm. Something is not right. With a 16 HD RAID 10 based on 10K
rpm HDs, you should be seeing higher absolute performance numbers.
Find out what HW the Areca guys and Tweakers guys used to test the
1280s.
At LW2006, Areca was demonstrating all-i
