| From: | Bill Moran <wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Vick Khera <vivek(at)khera(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Postgres General Postgres General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Postgresql Hardware |
| Date: | 2009-09-11 17:06:27 |
| Message-ID: | 20090911130627.6a61831a.wmoran@potentialtech.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
In response to Vick Khera <vivek(at)khera(dot)org>:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 6:01 AM, Psicopunk <gil(dot)nunes(dot)resende(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > What HW is more important to postgresql performance?
> > Assuming that the database will have some load, what hardware must i
> > buy?
>
>
> Generally, you put as much RAM as you can afford, and then buy the
> fastest disks you can afford.
More specifically, for high loads, get fast SCSI or SAS disks, directly
attached, and arrange them in a RAID-10.
Whether or not such a setup is overkill (sometimes it is) depends on
how much load you're really generating. But (as Vick stated) DB servers
are usually bottlenecked on how fast they can access the disks, not RAM
or CPU.
--
Bill Moran
http://www.potentialtech.com
http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Psicopunk | 2009-09-11 17:09:27 | Re: Postgresql Hardware |
| Previous Message | Ben Chobot | 2009-09-11 17:02:26 | Re: Postgresql Hardware |