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 B89479DCC37 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:31:27 -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 73317-06 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:31:30 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: delayed 01:00:01.386895 by SQLgrey- Received: from vms046pub.verizon.net (vms046pub.verizon.net [206.46.252.46]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FA589DCA67 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:31:24 -0400 (AST) Received: from osgiliath.mathom.us ([151.200.254.241]) by vms046.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.02 (built Sep 9 2005)) with ESMTPA id <0IW90093LUSDINY2@vms046.mailsrvcs.net> for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 06:31:26 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by osgiliath.mathom.us (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B5566E5B3 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:31:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from osgiliath.mathom.us ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (osgiliath.home.mathom.us [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 19408-03-3 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:31:23 -0500 (EST) Received: by osgiliath.mathom.us (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 934F56E622; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:31:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:31:23 -0500 From: Michael Stone Subject: Re: 1 TB of memory In-reply-to: To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Mail-followup-to: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Message-id: <20060317123121.GO15140@mathom.us> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-disposition: inline X-Pgp-Fingerprint: 53 FF 38 00 E7 DD 0A 9C 84 52 84 C5 EE DF 7C 88 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mathom.us References: <8B16F5C8-DFC8-4694-902C-AE584E490530@pervasive.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060126 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.738 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.498, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=1.236] X-Spam-Score: 0.738 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200603/268 X-Sequence-Number: 17705 On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 10:44:25PM -0800, Luke Lonergan wrote: >You'd be better off with 4 x $10K servers that do 800MB/s from disk each and >a Bizgres MPP - then you'd do 3.2GB/s (faster than the SSD) at a price 1/10 >of the SSD, and you'd have 24TB of RAID5 disk under you. Except, of course, that your solution doesn't have a seek time of zero. That approach is great for applications that are limited by their sequential scan speed, not so good for applications with random access. At 3.2 GB/s it would still take over 5 minutes to seqscan a TB, so you'd probably want some indices--and you're not going to be getting 800MB/s per system doing random index scans from rotating disk (but you might with SSD). Try not to beat your product drum quite so loud... Mike Stone