Re: Which hardware ?

From: "Lionel" <lionel(at)art-informatique(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Which hardware ?
Date: 2008-06-17 14:49:17
Message-ID: g38ite$26gp$1@news.hub.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> You won't need lots of processer, then.

can't find less than quad core for this price range...

> How big's the database?

with 20 millions of rows, the main table is 3.5 Go on win XP.
With 8 Go of indexes.

I estimate the whole database around 30 Go / year

> If you can have enough memory to hold the
> whole thing, including all indexes, in memory, that's what you want.
> Apart from that, "dual SATA2" is probably underpowered. But. . .

RAID is twice more expansive.
(600euros/month for a 5x750Go SATA2 with 12Gb of ram and unnecessary 2x quad
core)

didn't find any RAID 10 "not too expansive" dedicated server.

If this setup is twice as fast, I can afford it. But if it a 30sec VS
40sec...I'm not sure my customer will pay.

>> Which OS would you use ? (knowing that there will be a JDK 1.6
>> installed too)
>
> . . .I think this is the real mistake. Get a separate database box.
> It's approximately impossible to tune a box correctly for both your
> application and your database, in my experience.

My tomcat webapp is well coded and consumes nearly nothing.
On such powerful hardware, I prefer to run both on the same server.
I could eventually run it on a different server, much less powerfull, but
it's not on the same network, I guess this would be an issue.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Smith 2008-06-17 15:32:16 Re: Which hardware ?
Previous Message Matthew Wakeling 2008-06-17 14:33:40 Re: Which hardware ?