Re: Shopping for hardware

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Jason Hihn <jhihn(at)paytimepayroll(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Shopping for hardware
Date: 2003-10-06 16:33:27
Message-ID: 200310060933.27715.josh@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Jason,

> In terms of numbers, we expect have an average of 100 active connections
> (most of which are idle 9/10ths of the time), with about 85% reading
> traffic. I hope to have one server host about 1000-2000 active databases,
> with the largest being about 60 meg (no blobs). Inactive databases will
> only be for reading (archival) purposes, and will seldom be accessed. (I
> could probably move them off to another server with a r/o disk...)

Hey, two people (one of them me) suggested that rather than putting all 2000
databases on one $15,000 server, that you buy 3 $5000 servers and split
things up. You may have considered this suggestion and rejected it, but
I'mm wondering if you missed it ...

If you're lumping everything on one server, you'll need to remember to
increase max_fsm_relations to the total number of tables in all databases ...
for example, for 10 tables in 2000 databases you'll want a setting of 20000
(which sounds huge but it's really only about 1mb memory).

--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message James Rogers 2003-10-06 16:55:38 Seqscan buffer promotion (was: reindex/vacuum locking/performance?)
Previous Message Vivek Khera 2003-10-06 16:21:57 Re: Shopping for hardware