Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:26:09 -0500
From: "Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com>
To: Zydoon <fzied@planet.tn>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: scaling up postgres
Message-ID: <20060613192609.GX34196@pervasive.com>
References: <200606030931.k539V38Y007877@smtp2.planet.net.tn>
	<20060603094355.GA23297@uio.no>
	<1150062140.23423.0.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<448D3B65.7090709@aeccom.com> <448DE0DB.1020107@planet.tn>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <448DE0DB.1020107@planet.tn>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11

On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 11:47:07PM +0200, Zydoon wrote:
> Thank you for sharing this.
> Coming back to my problem :) A very faithful partner accepted to
> gracefully borrow us 3 Pseries (bi-ppc + 2G RAM not more). with linux on
> them.
> Now I'm trying to make my tests, and I'm not that sure I will make the
> switch to the PSeries, since my dual xeon with 4 G RAM can handle 3500
> concurrent postmasters consuming 3.7 G of the RAM. I cannot reach this
> number on the PSeries with 2 G.
> 
> can someone give me advice ?

Uhm... stick with commodity CPUs?

Seriously, unless you're going to run on some seriously big hardware
you'll be hard-pressed to find better performance/dollar than going with
a server running Opterons.

If you're trying to decide how much hardware you need to meet a specific
performance target there's a company here in Austin I can put you in
touch with; if I'm not mistaken on the cost of pSeries hardware their
fee would be well worth it to make sure you don't end up with too much
(or worse, too little) hardware for your load.

> BTW, I promise, at the end of my tests, I'll publish my report.

Great. More performance data is always good to have.
-- 
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant      jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software      http://pervasive.com    work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf       cell: 512-569-9461