Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ADDE2E004F for ; Sat, 24 May 2008 13:39:28 -0300 (ADT) Received: from developer.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 16232-02 for ; Sat, 24 May 2008 13:39:24 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mx1.wp.pl (mx1.wp.pl [212.77.101.5]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FCF02E004A for ; Sat, 24 May 2008 13:39:24 -0300 (ADT) Received: (wp-smtpd smtp.wp.pl 19890 invoked from network); 24 May 2008 18:39:07 +0200 Received: from host082.nice.hnet.pl (HELO [192.168.1.102]) (zawadaa@[213.192.87.82]) (envelope-sender ) by smtp.wp.pl (WP-SMTPD) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 24 May 2008 18:39:07 +0200 Message-ID: <483844B4.4020307@wp.pl> Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 18:39:16 +0200 From: Andrzej Zawadzki Organization: Dom Finansowy QS Sp. z o.o. - Biuro Informatyki User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071220) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Quad Xeon or Quad Opteron? References: <48369F59.60902@wp.pl> <4836ABD1.1060904@postnewspapers.com.au> In-Reply-To: <4836ABD1.1060904@postnewspapers.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-WP-AV: skaner antywirusowy poczty Wirtualnej Polski S. A. X-WP-SPAM: NO 0000000 [MRNE] X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200805/322 X-Sequence-Number: 30290 Craig Ringer wrote: > Andrzej Zawadzki wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> We're planning new production server for PostgreSQL and I'm wondering >> which processor (or even platform) will be better: Quad Xeon or Quad >> Opteron (for example SUN now has a new offer Sun Fire X4440 x64). >> > > [snip] > > >> Suggestions? >> > > To get a more useful response here, you might want to include some > information about your workload and database size, and report on your > planned disk subsystem and RAM. > Disk subsystem: Hitachi AMS200, 12x10krpm SAS drives in RAID 10 (+1 hot spare), 1GB mem with battery Database is ~60GB and growing ;-) Workloads: ~94% - SELECTS Q/sek: Avg~300 (1000 in peak) Server: v40z is a 4xdouble core with 16GB RAM > Also, based on what I've seen on this list rather than personal > experience, you might want to give more thought to your storage than to > CPU power. The usual thrust of advice seems to be: Get a fast, battery > backed RAID controller. "Fast" does not mean "fast sequential I/O in > ideal conditions so marketing can print a big number on the box"; you > need to consider random I/O too. Get lots of fast disks. Get enough RAM > to ensure that your indexes fit in RAM if possible. > Yes, of course You are right: disks are very important - I know that especially after switch to SAN. But server is getting older ;-) - I need good warranty - I have 3 years from SUN for example. ps. After reading about HP: SA P800 with StorageWorks MSA70 I'm considering buying such storage with ~20 disks. [...] -- Andrzej Zawadzki