Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: separate drives for WAL or pgdata files

From: David Lang <dlang(at)invendra(dot)net>
To: Anjan Dave <adave(at)vantage(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: separate drives for WAL or pgdata files
Date: 2005-12-20 03:48:15
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005, David Lang wrote:

> this is getting dangerously close to being able to fit in ram. I saw an 
> article over the weekend that Samsung is starting to produce 8G DIMM's, that 
> can go 8 to a controller (instead of 4 per as is currently done), when 
> motherboards come out that support this you can have 64G of ram per opteron 
> socket. it will be pricy, but the performance....

a message on another mailing list got me to thinking, there is the horas 
project that is aiming to put togeather 16 socket Opteron systems within a 
year (they claim sooner, but I'm being pessimistic ;-), combine this with 
these 8G dimms and you can have a SINGLE system with 1TB of ram on it 
(right at the limits of the Opteron's 40 bit external memory addressing)


and the thing it that it won't take much change in the software stack to 
deal with this.

Linux is already running on machines with 1TB of ram (and 512 CPU's) so it 
will run very well. Postgres probably needs some attention to it's locks, 
but it is getting that attention now (and it will get more with the Sun 
Niagra chips being able to run 8 processes simultaniously)

just think of the possibilities (if you have the money to afford the super 
machine :-)

David Lang

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Juan CaseroDate: 2005-12-20 04:16:36
Subject: Re: High context switches occurring
Previous:From: David LangDate: 2005-12-20 03:20:56
Subject: Re: separate drives for WAL or pgdata files

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group