<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: My Amazon EC2 server specs</title>
	<atom:link href="http://jasonmar.com/2009/11/my-server-specs/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://jasonmar.com/2009/11/my-server-specs/</link>
	<description>Official Blog of Jason Mar</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Jul 2010 22:51:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: JMar</title>
		<link>http://jasonmar.com/2009/11/my-server-specs/comment-page-1/#comment-487</link>
		<dc:creator>JMar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Apr 2010 05:37:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jasonmar.com/?p=2475#comment-487</guid>
		<description>Thanks John.
This seems to be a problem with my understanding of Amazon&#039;s EBS system. If they are indeed allocating me logical drives on one physical drive instead of on a random physical drive chosen from among the thousands that make up the EBS system, which is what I was hoping for, then I guess I might as well have just left everything on one partition then to make the setup a whole lot easier.

I never did get around to doing the benchmarking... comparing partitioned vs non-partitioned postgreSQL performance would have answered this question with solid evidence.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks John.<br />
This seems to be a problem with my understanding of Amazon&#8217;s EBS system. If they are indeed allocating me logical drives on one physical drive instead of on a random physical drive chosen from among the thousands that make up the EBS system, which is what I was hoping for, then I guess I might as well have just left everything on one partition then to make the setup a whole lot easier.</p>
<p>I never did get around to doing the benchmarking&#8230; comparing partitioned vs non-partitioned postgreSQL performance would have answered this question with solid evidence.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Langstaff</title>
		<link>http://jasonmar.com/2009/11/my-server-specs/comment-page-1/#comment-442</link>
		<dc:creator>John Langstaff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:45:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jasonmar.com/?p=2475#comment-442</guid>
		<description>You&#039;re implementing on one level to achieve effeciencies on a different level.

The small logical drives are likely to be on the same physical drive or disk channel, and therefore not able to simultaneously operate the drives.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re implementing on one level to achieve effeciencies on a different level.</p>
<p>The small logical drives are likely to be on the same physical drive or disk channel, and therefore not able to simultaneously operate the drives.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- WP Super Cache is installed but broken. The path to wp-cache-phase1.php in wp-content/advanced-cache.php must be fixed! -->