From: | Adam Tauno Williams <adamtaunowilliams(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Quad Xeon or Quad Opteron? |
Date: | 2008-05-23 12:21:57 |
Message-ID: | 1211545317.4704.2.camel@WM_ADAM1.morrison.iserv.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> Also, based on what I've seen on this list rather than personal
> experience, you might want to give more thought to your storage than to
> CPU power. The usual thrust of advice seems to be: Get a fast, battery
> backed RAID controller. "Fast" does not mean "fast sequential I/O in
> ideal conditions so marketing can print a big number on the box"; you
> need to consider random I/O too. Get lots of fast disks. Get enough RAM
> to ensure that your indexes fit in RAM if possible.
> Note, however, that I have no direct experience with big Pg databases;
> I'm just trying to provide you with a guide of what information to
> provide and what to think about so you can get better answers here from
> people who actually have a clue.
Yep, we've had PostreSQL databases for a long time. The various
current generation processors, IMO, have no substantive difference in
practice; at least not relative to the bang-for-the-buck or more RAM
and good I/O.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Knight, Doug | 2008-05-23 12:36:38 | Re: Quad Xeon or Quad Opteron? |
Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2008-05-23 11:34:41 | Re: Quad Xeon or Quad Opteron? |