| From: | Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | A B <gentosaker(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PERFORMANCE] Buying hardware |
| Date: | 2009-01-26 12:09:55 |
| Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.1.10.0901261203450.4317@aragorn.flymine.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> More cores is more important than faster but fewer
>
> Again, more slower disks > fewer slower ones.
Not necessarily. It depends what you are doing. If you're going to be
running only one database connection at a time, doing really big complex
queries, then having really fast CPUs and discs is better than having
lots. However, that situation is rare.
> RAID-10 is almost always the right choice.
Agreed. Unless you don't care about the data and need the space, where
RAID 0 might be useful, or if you really don't need the space, where RAID
1 might be okay. If your controller supports it.
Matthew
--
The third years are wandering about all worried at the moment because they
have to hand in their final projects. Please be sympathetic to them, say
things like "ha-ha-ha", but in a sympathetic tone of voice
-- Computer Science Lecturer
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthew Wakeling | 2009-01-26 12:18:23 | Re: postgresql 8.3 tps rate |
| Previous Message | Thomas Finneid | 2009-01-26 09:10:13 | Re: strange index performance? |