Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF4942E0287
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:30:54 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 50571-01 for
	<pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:30:42 -0400 (AST)
Received: from svr2.hagander.net (svr2.hagander.net [88.198.128.226])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A38212E01B3
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:30:25 -0400 (AST)
Received: from dynamic.hagander.net ([127.0.0.1]) (encrypted and
	authenticated) by svr2.hagander.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id
	04023DCC7A8; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:30:23 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <47B2FF68.90208@hagander.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:32:08 +0100
From: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Matthew <matthew@flymine.org>
CC: PGSQL Performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Small DB Server Advice
References: <20080213131206.GA18969@campbell-lange.net>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0802131346300.20402@aragorn.flymine.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0802131346300.20402@aragorn.flymine.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200802/135
X-Sequence-Number: 28677

Matthew wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Rory Campbell-Lange wrote:
>>    4 x 147GB 15000 rpm SCSI in RAID 10 with 320-1 RAID CARD + 64MB 
>> cache BBU
>>    2x Intel Xeon E5405 / 4x 2.00GHz / 1333MHz FSB / 12MB cache
>>    6GB RAM
>>
>>    Cost around 2320 GBP -- it would be great to get it under 2000
>>    Needs to be in the UK.
> 
>> I would be grateful for any comments. I'm particularly out of date about
>> the best processors to go for. DNUK also have Opteron as an option.
> 
> That sounds pretty good. It should run postgres fairly well, especially 
> if you have quite a few parallel queries coming in. You won't need a 
> bigger BBU cache if it's read-heavy. You'll have eight CPU cores, which 
> is good. And RAID 10 is good.

In my experience, battery backed cache is always worth the money. Even 
if you're mostly select, you will have some updates. And it'll also pick 
up other write activity onthe system...


//Magnus