From: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | Anjan Dave <adave(at)vantage(dot)com>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Tuning for mid-size server |
Date: | 2003-10-21 16:48:33 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0310211042040.10616-100000@css120.ihs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Anjan,
>
> > Pretty soon, a PowerEdge 6650 with 4 x 2Ghz XEONs, and 8GB Memory, with
> > internal drives on RAID5 will be delivered. Postgres will be from RH8.0.
>
> How many drives? RAID5 sucks for heavy read-write databases, unless you have
> 5+ drives. Or a large battery-backed cache.
You don't need a large cache, so much as a cache. The size isn't usually
an issue now that 64 to 256 megs caches are the nominal cache sizes. Back
when it was a choice of 4 or 8 megs it made a much bigger difference than
64 versus 256 meg make today.
Also, if it's a read only environment, RAID5 with n drives equals the
performance of RAID0 with n-1 drives.
> Also, last I checked, you can't address 8GB of RAM without a 64-bit processor.
> Since when are the Xeons 64-bit?
Josh, you gotta get out more. IA32 has supported >4 gig ram for a long
time now, and so has the linux kernel. It uses a paging method to do it.
Individual processes are still limited to ~3 gig on Linux on 32 bit
hardware though, so the extra mem will almost certainly spend it's time as
kernel cache.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-10-21 17:00:41 | Re: Performance weirdness with/without vacuum analyze |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-10-21 16:42:55 | Re: index file bloating still in 7.4 ? |