| From: | Michael Stone <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 1 TB of memory |
| Date: | 2006-03-17 12:31:23 |
| Message-ID: | 20060317123121.GO15140@mathom.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 10:44:25PM -0800, Luke Lonergan wrote:
>You'd be better off with 4 x $10K servers that do 800MB/s from disk each and
>a Bizgres MPP - then you'd do 3.2GB/s (faster than the SSD) at a price 1/10
>of the SSD, and you'd have 24TB of RAID5 disk under you.
Except, of course, that your solution doesn't have a seek time of zero.
That approach is great for applications that are limited by their
sequential scan speed, not so good for applications with random access.
At 3.2 GB/s it would still take over 5 minutes to seqscan a TB, so you'd
probably want some indices--and you're not going to be getting 800MB/s
per system doing random index scans from rotating disk (but you might
with SSD). Try not to beat your product drum quite so loud...
Mike Stone
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | PFC | 2006-03-17 13:35:15 | Re: Background writer configuration |
| Previous Message | Evgeny Gridasov | 2006-03-17 12:24:48 | Re: Background writer configuration |