Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases (

From: Joshua Marsh <icub3d(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases (
Date: 2005-11-17 20:58:46
Message-ID: 38242de90511171258v22f334f3ua474a8aa99bdc29d@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On 11/17/05, William Yu <wyu(at)talisys(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > No argument there. But it's pointless if you are IO bound.
>
> Why would you just accept "we're IO bound, nothing we can do"? I'd do
> everything in my power to make my app go from IO bound to CPU bound --
> whether by optimizing my code or buying more hardware. I can tell you if
> our OLTP servers were IO bound, it would run like crap. Instead of < 1
> sec, we'd be looking at 5-10 seconds per "user transaction" and our
> users would be screaming bloody murder.
>
> In theory, you can always convert your IO bound DB to CPU bound by
> stuffing more and more RAM into your server. (Or partitioning the DB
> across multiple servers.) Whether it's cost effective depends on the DB
> and how much your users are paying you -- and that's a case-by-case
> analysis. Not a global statement of "IO-bound, pointless".


We all want our systems to be CPU bound, but it's not always possible.
Remember, he is managing a 5 TB Databse. That's quite a bit different than a
100 GB or even 500 GB database.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: David BorehamDate: 2005-11-17 21:02:51
Subject: Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases (
Previous:From: Alan StangeDate: 2005-11-17 20:40:53
Subject: Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases (

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group