X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6209952908
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Sat,  4 Jun 2005 10:30:58 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 45135-04
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Sat,  4 Jun 2005 13:30:55 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from serrano.cc.columbia.edu (serrano.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.29.6])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6807352906
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Sat,  4 Jun 2005 10:30:54 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from JAGLABLAPTOP (user-0cdfa9u.cable.mindspring.com
 [24.215.169.62])
	(user=baj2107 mech=LOGIN bits=0)
	by serrano.cc.columbia.edu (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j54DUtUE005586
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT);
	Sat, 4 Jun 2005 09:30:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Bernd Jagla" <baj2107@columbia.edu>
To: "'Pgsql performance'" <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Best hardware
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 09:30:57 -0400
Message-ID: <002701c56909$a5491720$0300a8c0@JAGLABLAPTOP>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527
Importance: Normal
X-No-Spam-Score: Local
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.48 on 128.59.29.6
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No,
 hits=0.516 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200506/92
X-Sequence-Number: 12730

Hi there,

And sorry for bringing this up again, but I couldn't find any recent
discussion on the best hardware, and I know it actually depends on what =
you
are doing...

So this is what I had in mind:

Our database is going to consist of about 100 tables or so of which only =
a
hand full will be really big, say in the 100 of million rows, fully =
indexed
and we are going to add a lot of entries (n* 100 000, n<100) on a daily
bases (24/5). So from my experience with MySql I know that it is =
somewhat
hard on the I/O, and that the speed of the head of the HD is actually
limitiing. Also, I only experimented with RAID5, and heard that RAID10 =
will
be good for reading but not writing.

So I wanted to go whith RAIDKing. They have a 16 bay Raid box that they =
fill
with Raptors (10krpm,73 GB, SATA), connected via FC. Now I am not sure =
what
server would be good or if I should go with redundant servers. Are Quad =
CPUs
any good? I heard that the IBM quad system is supposed to be 40% faster =
than
HP or Dell???. And how much RAM should go for: are 8GB enough? Oh, of =
course
I wanted to run it under RedHat...

I would appreciate any sugestions and comments or if you are too bored =
with
this topic, just send me a link where I can read up on this....

Thanks a lot for your kind replies.

Bernd


Bernd Jagla, PhD
Associate Research Scientist
Columbia University
=20