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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard_D_Levine@xxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 3:12 PM > To: mmiranda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; pgsql-general-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 04/26/2005 01:12:49 PM: > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: pgsql-general-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Brent Wood > > > Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 8:20 PM > > > To: Uwe C. Schroeder > > > Cc: pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Subject: Re: 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
