On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 10:15, Luke Lonergan wrote: > Mike, > > On 8/10/06 4:09 AM, "Michael Stone" <mstone+postgres@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 08:29:13PM -0700, Steve Poe wrote: > >> I tried as you suggested and my performance dropped by 50%. I went from > >> a 32 TPS to 16. Oh well. > > > > If you put data & xlog on the same array, put them on seperate > > partitions, probably formatted differently (ext2 on xlog). > > If he's doing the same thing on both systems (Sun and HP) and the HP > performance is dramatically worse despite using more disks and having faster > CPUs and more RAM, ISTM the problem isn't the configuration. > > Add to this the fact that the Sun machine is CPU bound while the HP is I/O > wait bound and I think the problem is the disk hardware or the driver > therein. I agree. The problem here looks to be the RAID controller. Steve, got access to a different RAID controller to test with?
