| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Buttafuoco <jim(at)contactbda(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Dale <sdale(at)rm(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Quick Performance Poll |
| Date: | 2006-04-20 16:55:32 |
| Message-ID: | 20060420165532.GZ49405@pervasive.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Interested in doing a case study for the website?
On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 09:36:25AM -0400, Jim Buttafuoco wrote:
>
> Simon,
>
> I have many databases over 1T with the largest being ~6T. All of my databases store telecom data, such as call detail
> records. The access is very fast when looking for a small subset of the data. For servers, I am using white box intel
> XEON and P4 systems with SATA disks, 4G of memory. SCSI is out of our price range, but if I had unlimited $ I would go
> with SCSI /SCSI raid instead.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-04-20 17:00:07 | Re: Performance decrease |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-04-20 16:50:02 | Re: SELECT FOR UPDATE performance is bad |