X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FDC99DC821 for ; Sat, 24 Dec 2005 15:50:41 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 30776-06 for ; Sat, 24 Dec 2005 15:50:40 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from frank.wiles.org (frank.wiles.org [24.124.39.75]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E99E9DC800 for ; Sat, 24 Dec 2005 15:50:37 -0400 (AST) Received: from kungfu (frank.wiles.org [127.0.0.1]) by frank.wiles.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id jBOJob3v030793; Sat, 24 Dec 2005 13:50:37 -0600 Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 13:50:42 -0600 From: Frank Wiles To: Juan Casero Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: What's the best hardver for PostgreSQL 8.1? Message-Id: <20051224135042.484c6e32.frank@wiles.org> In-Reply-To: <200512212231.55100.caseroj@comcast.net> References: <43A84D03.7090002@ritek.hu> <200512212209.50234.caseroj@comcast.net> <200512212231.55100.caseroj@comcast.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.0.1 (GTK+ 2.6.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 required=5 tests=[none] X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200512/595 X-Sequence-Number: 16416 On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:31:54 -0500 Juan Casero wrote: > Sorry folks. I had a couple of glasses of wine as I wrote this. > Anyway I originally wanted the box to have more than two drives so I > could do RAID 5 but that is going to cost too much. Also, contrary > to my statement below it seems to me I should run the 32 bit > postgresql server on the 64 bit kernel. Would you agree this will > probably yield the best performance? I know it depends alot on the > system but for now this database is about 20 gigabytes. Not too large > right now but it may grow 5x in the next year. You definitely DO NOT want to do RAID 5 on a database server. That is probably the worst setup you could have, I've seen it have lower performance than just a single hard disk. RAID 1 and RAID 1+0 are optimal, but you want to stay far away from RAID 5. IMHO RAID 5 is only useful on near line backup servers or Samba file servers where space is more important than speed. --------------------------------- Frank Wiles http://www.wiles.org ---------------------------------