| From: | Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8(at)verizon(dot)net>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Need help with 8.4 Performance Testing |
| Date: | 2008-12-09 17:28:02 |
| Message-ID: | BDFBB77C9E07BE4A984DAAE981D19F961ACA17D9FD@EXVMBX018-1.exch018.msoutlookonline.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> Lucky you, having needs that are fulfilled by sequential reads. :)
> I wonder how many hard drives it would take to be CPU bound on random
> access patterns? About 40 to 60? And probably 15k / SAS drives to
> boot. Cause that's what we're looking at in the next few years where
> I work.
About $3000 worth of Intel --- mainstream SSD's = 240GB space (6 in raid 10) today, 2x to 3x that storage area in 1 year.
Random reads are even easier, provided you don't need more than 500GB or so.
And with something like ZFS + L2ARC you can back your data with large slow iops disks and have cache access to data without requiring mirrors on the cache ($3k of ssds for that covers 2x the area, then).
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthew Wakeling | 2008-12-09 17:35:16 | Re: Need help with 8.4 Performance Testing |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2008-12-09 17:26:12 | Re: Need help with 8.4 Performance Testing |