Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 16:51:47 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>
Cc: stange@rentec.com, Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>,
	Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com>, Joshua Marsh <icub3d@gmail.com>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases (
Message-ID: <20051121195147.GC26621@surnet.cl>
Mail-Followup-To: Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>, stange@rentec.com,
	Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>,
	Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com>, Joshua Marsh <icub3d@gmail.com>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
References: <BFA6C187.1425C%llonergan@greenplum.com>
	<4381E077.80009@rentec.com> <87ek59omex.fsf@stark.xeocode.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87ek59omex.fsf@stark.xeocode.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11

Greg Stark wrote:

> I also fear that heading in that direction could push Postgres even further
> from the niche of software that works fine even on low end hardware into the
> realm of software that only works on high end hardware. It's already suffering
> a bit from that.

What's high end hardware for you?  I do development on a Celeron 533
machine with 448 MB of RAM and I find it to work well (for a "slow"
value of "well", certainly.)  If you're talking about embedded hardware,
that's another matter entirely and I don't think we really support the
idea of running Postgres on one of those things.

There's certainly true in that the memory requirements have increased a
bit, but I don't think it really qualifies as "high end" even on 8.1.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                           Developer, http://www.PostgreSQL.org
Jude: I wish humans laid eggs
Ringlord: Why would you want humans to lay eggs?
Jude: So I can eat them