Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15D7A65031B
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:08:26 -0400 (AST)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 99285-10
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:08:23 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from ptb-relay01.plus.net (ptb-relay01.plus.net [212.159.14.145])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54AF96501CA
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:08:23 -0400 (AST)
Received: from [80.229.150.39] (helo=pd600.barnhouse)
	by ptb-relay01.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1LAudk-0005r9-60;
	Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:08:16 +0000
Received: from [192.168.0.87] (unknown [192.168.0.87])
	by pd600.barnhouse (Postfix) with ESMTP id 936B34E212C;
	Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:10:51 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <49419DAF.1040706@mansionfamily.plus.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:09:35 +0000
From: James Mansion <james@mansionfamily.plus.com>
Organization: MsgWare
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
CC: Scott Carey <scott@richrelevance.com>,
	Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net>, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Need help with 8.4 Performance Testing
References: <200812071138.01215.josh@agliodbs.com>
	<dcc563d10812072140q1cb257cbs8140b390759cb1a5@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.GSO.4.64.0812081442410.5242@westnet.com>
	<dcc563d10812081231y6c71601am677ba828ff0b515e@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.GSO.4.64.0812081731510.26019@westnet.com>
	<b42b73150812081723qdf7f203tcba3c3660023890f@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.GSO.4.64.0812082225470.13669@westnet.com>
	<493E6DBE.2040605@verizon.net>
	<BDFBB77C9E07BE4A984DAAE981D19F961ACA17D9FC@EXVMBX018-1.exch018.msoutlookonline.net>
	<dcc563d10812090921l90fd2eci8e1d163258d49ce0@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <dcc563d10812090921l90fd2eci8e1d163258d49ce0@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Plusnet-Relay: 6c1680990505d12084681dd553c1f6e0
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200812/138
X-Sequence-Number: 32174

Scott Marlowe wrote:
> involves tiny bits of data scattered throughout the database.  Our
> current database is about 20-25 Gig, which means it's quickly reaching
> the point where it will not fit in our 32G of ram, and it's likely to
> grow too big for 64Gig before a year or two is out.
>   
...
> I wonder how many hard drives it would take to be CPU bound on random
> access patterns?  About 40 to 60?  And probably 15k / SAS drives to
>   
Well, its not a very big database and you're seek bound - so what's 
wrong with the latest
generation flash drives?  They're perfect for what you want to do it 
seems, and you can
probably get what you need using the new ARC cache on flash stuff in ZFS.