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 D5A8C9DCB8F for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:38:12 -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 77079-01 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:38:16 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from zproxy.gmail.com (zproxy.gmail.com [64.233.162.200]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2F649DCB0F for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:38:10 -0400 (AST) Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 8so532282nzo for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 05:38:14 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=MPA7eKxF9sxTdAL5DVMa0zXfh3vamjKHwAHBD0C4lUPTEEkJSXerEemYnCHt34isV++k2PINGQOUn8PUmP3iUF9YOMx8H/qXlQx4Om6PzzKyBW9wgD3ygqFrwYpkx4+BSnjcqfmlEydBr0PBKaI7kAO+DYkh9DEHFBMZzJZsBmY= Received: by 10.65.59.10 with SMTP id m10mr201152qbk; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 05:38:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.65.240.17 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 05:38:14 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3cf983d0603170538s788b46b3saeec119a0fd0cce5@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 05:38:14 -0800 From: "Rodrigo Madera" To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: 1 TB of memory In-Reply-To: <20060317123121.GO15140@mathom.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <8B16F5C8-DFC8-4694-902C-AE584E490530@pervasive.com> <20060317123121.GO15140@mathom.us> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.12 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.120] X-Spam-Score: 0.12 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200603/270 X-Sequence-Number: 17707 For God's sake buy a mainframe! =3Do) On 3/17/06, Michael Stone wrote: > 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 > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org >