Message-ID: <4669940F.3050002@commandprompt.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 10:38:23 -0700
From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070403)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: david@lang.hm
CC: Ben <bench@silentmedia.com>, Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com>,
	postgresql performance list <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: How much ram is too much
References: <47A154B5-496C-478A-B60D-4238AF12EAC6@fastcrypt.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706080950540.27105@localhost.localdomain>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706081028480.18969@asgard.lang.hm>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706081028480.18969@asgard.lang.hm>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

david@lang.hm wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, Dave Cramer wrote:
>>
>>>  Is it possible that providing 128G of ram is too much ? Will other 
>>> systems
>>>  in the server bottleneck ?
> 
> the only way 128G of ram would be too much is if your total database 
> size (including indexes) is smaller then this.
> 
> now it may not gain you as much of an advantage going from 64G to 128G 
> as it does going from 32G to 64G, but that depends on many variables as 
> others have been asking.

I don't know about the IBM but I know some of the HPs require slower ram 
to actually get to 128G.

Joshua D. Drake


> 
> David Lang
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
> 
>               http://archives.postgresql.org
> 


-- 

       === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
              http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/