Greg Smith wrote: > It's a tough time to be picking up inexpensive consumer SATA disks right > now. Seagate's drive reliability has been falling hard the last couple > of years, but all the WD drives I've started trying out instead have > just awful firmware. At last they're all cheap I guess. I also have a 250 GB drive in another machine that I need to move to the main desktop. I don't remember the model of it -- it's been shut down for a year. :( Given that drive, I really don't have a need to buy a disk drive right now, and I'm saving my pennies for an industrial-strength laptop that I can dual-boot Windows 64-bit and Linux. I've gotten amazing use out of my ancient Compaq Presario 2110US, considering it's a "home unit", but it's heavy, slow and has only 512 MB of RAM. > P.S. I have several of the same basic Seagate drive you have (160GB, > even bought at CompUSA!) and would expect at least 2-3X better pgbench > results than you're seeing. I realized that I've never actually run > that test without first tweaking the postgresql.conf > (shared_buffers,checkpoint_segments) so that may be part of it. One of > my systems here has just one of those disk in it, next time I boot that > up I'll see what results I get with an untuned config. > > -- > * Greg Smith gsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD > Thanks!! I'm just getting into the PostgreSQL tuning part of things. -- M. Edward (Ed) Borasky I've never met a happy clam. In fact, most of them were pretty steamed. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
