Re: Speed / Server

From: Nikolas Everett <nik9000(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: anthony(at)resolution(dot)com, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Speed / Server
Date: 2009-10-05 13:30:55
Message-ID: d4e11e980910050630h1324ee6dq8d60608997850b69@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

> But you should plan on partitioning to multiple db servers up front
> and save pain of conversion later on. A dual socket motherboard with
> 16 to 32 SAS drives and a fast RAID controller is WAY cheaper than a
> similar machine with 4 to 8 sockets is gonna be. And if you gotta go
> there anyway, might as well spend your money on other stuff.
>
>
I agree. If you can partition that sensor data across multiple DBs and have
your application do the knitting you might be better off. If I may be so
bold, you might want to look at splaying the systems out across your
backends. I'm just trying to think of a dimension that you won't want to
aggregate across frequently.

On the other hand, one of these 16 to 32 SAS drive systems with a raid card
will likely get you a long way.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jean-David Beyer 2009-10-05 13:37:10 Re: Best suiting OS
Previous Message Robert Haas 2009-10-05 13:25:44 Re: Best suiting OS