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

Re: [PERFORMANCE] Buying hardware

From: Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org>
To: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: A B <gentosaker(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PERFORMANCE] Buying hardware
Date: 2009-01-26 12:09:55
Message-ID: (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> More cores is more important than faster but fewer
> Again, more slower disks > fewer slower ones.

Not necessarily. It depends what you are doing. If you're going to be 
running only one database connection at a time, doing really big complex 
queries, then having really fast CPUs and discs is better than having 
lots. However, that situation is rare.

> RAID-10 is almost always the right choice.

Agreed. Unless you don't care about the data and need the space, where 
RAID 0 might be useful, or if you really don't need the space, where RAID 
1 might be okay. If your controller supports it.


 The third years are wandering about all worried at the moment because they
 have to hand in their final projects. Please be sympathetic to them, say
 things like "ha-ha-ha", but in a sympathetic tone of voice 
                                        -- Computer Science Lecturer

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Matthew WakelingDate: 2009-01-26 12:18:23
Subject: Re: postgresql 8.3 tps rate
Previous:From: Thomas FinneidDate: 2009-01-26 09:10:13
Subject: Re: strange index performance?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group