| From: | Vivek Khera <vivek(at)khera(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Spend 7K *WHERE*? WAS Intel SRCS16 SATA raid? and How |
| Date: | 2005-04-20 15:24:56 |
| Message-ID: | d4ee41e0a269451f239feeef5d6694a0@khera.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Apr 15, 2005, at 8:10 PM, Ron Mayer wrote:
> For example, I didn't see many other $7000 proposals have
> have nearly 10GB of ram, or over a dozen CPUs (even counting
> the raid controllers), or over a half a terrabyte of storage ,
> or capable of 5-10 Gbit/sec of network traffic... The extra
And how much are you spending on the switch that will carry 10Gb/sec
traffic?
> capacity would allow me to have redundancy that would somewhat
> make up for the flakier hardware, no raid, etc.
it would work for some class of applications which are pretty much
read-only. and don't forget to factor in the overhead of the
replication...
>
> Thoughts? Over the next couple months I'll be evaluating
> a cluster of 4 systems almost exactly as I described (but
> with cheaper dual hard drives in each system), for a GIS
> system that does lend itself well to application-level
> partitioning.
I'd go with fewer bigger boxes with RAID so i can sleep better at night
:-)
Vivek Khera, Ph.D.
+1-301-869-4449 x806
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vivek Khera | 2005-04-20 15:27:22 | Re: Foreign key slows down copy/insert |
| Previous Message | Richard van den Berg | 2005-04-20 15:15:37 | Re: When are index scans used over seq scans? |