| From: | "Claus Guttesen" <kometen(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "christian(dot)braun(at)tudor(dot)lu" <christian(dot)braun(at)tudor(dot)lu> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Hardware suggestions |
| Date: | 2007-06-19 11:10:45 |
| Message-ID: | b41c75520706190410m2c002d68v33bf9d550ba42e9e@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> At our institute we are currently establishing a small GIS working group.
> The data storage for vector data should be the central PostGIS system.
> Raster data will be held in file system.
> Mostly the users are accessing the data base in read only mode. From the
> client side there is not much write access this only will be done by the
> admin of the system to load new datasets. A prototype is currently running
> on an old desktop pc with ubuntu dapper - not very powerfull, of course!
> We have about 10000 € to spend for a new server including the storage. Do
> you have any recommendations for us?
When it comes to server-hardware I'd go for intel's dual-core
(woodcrest) or quad-core. They seem to perform better atm. compared to
opterons.
--
regards
Claus
When lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom,
the gentlest gamester is the soonest winner.
Shakespeare
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Carol Walter | 2007-06-19 12:39:41 | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [PERFORM] Postgres VS Oracle |
| Previous Message | Karl Wright | 2007-06-19 11:04:17 | Re: Performance query about large tables, lots of concurrent access |