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: alpine.DEB.1.10.0901261203450.4317@aragorn.flymine.org (view raw or flat)
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.

Matthew

-- 
 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

Responses

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 © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group