From: | "Lionel" <lionel(at)art-informatique(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Which hardware ? |
Date: | 2008-06-17 14:49:17 |
Message-ID: | g38ite$26gp$1@news.hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> You won't need lots of processer, then.
can't find less than quad core for this price range...
> How big's the database?
with 20 millions of rows, the main table is 3.5 Go on win XP.
With 8 Go of indexes.
I estimate the whole database around 30 Go / year
> If you can have enough memory to hold the
> whole thing, including all indexes, in memory, that's what you want.
> Apart from that, "dual SATA2" is probably underpowered. But. . .
RAID is twice more expansive.
(600euros/month for a 5x750Go SATA2 with 12Gb of ram and unnecessary 2x quad
core)
didn't find any RAID 10 "not too expansive" dedicated server.
If this setup is twice as fast, I can afford it. But if it a 30sec VS
40sec...I'm not sure my customer will pay.
>> Which OS would you use ? (knowing that there will be a JDK 1.6
>> installed too)
>
> . . .I think this is the real mistake. Get a separate database box.
> It's approximately impossible to tune a box correctly for both your
> application and your database, in my experience.
My tomcat webapp is well coded and consumes nearly nothing.
On such powerful hardware, I prefer to run both on the same server.
I could eventually run it on a different server, much less powerfull, but
it's not on the same network, I guess this would be an issue.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Smith | 2008-06-17 15:32:16 | Re: Which hardware ? |
Previous Message | Matthew Wakeling | 2008-06-17 14:33:40 | Re: Which hardware ? |