| From: | "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Greg Stark" <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, "Joshua Marsh" <icub3d(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases ( |
| Date: | 2005-11-18 06:07:54 |
| Message-ID: | BFA2AFBA.13FC4%llonergan@greenplum.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Greg,
On 11/17/05 9:17 PM, "Greg Stark" <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> Ok, a more productive point: it's not really the size of the database that
> controls whether you're I/O bound or CPU bound. It's the available I/O
> bandwidth versus your CPU speed.
Postgres + Any x86 CPU from 2.4GHz up to Opteron 280 is CPU bound after
110MB/s of I/O. This is true of Postgres 7.4, 8.0 and 8.1.
A $1,000 system with one CPU and two SATA disks in a software RAID0 will
perform exactly the same as a $80,000 system with 8 dual core CPUs and the
world's best SCSI RAID hardware on a large database for decision support
(what the poster asked about).
Regards,
- Luke
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Cramer | 2005-11-18 12:58:43 | Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases ( |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2005-11-18 05:17:15 | Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases ( |