Message-ID: <4D0F971C.8040309@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 12:49:16 -0500
From: Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100317)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
CC: selvi88 <selvi.dct@gmail.com>, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: postgres performance tunning
References: <1292502787617-3307846.post@n5.nabble.com>
	<4D0B6393.8010400@2ndquadrant.com>	<1292664882937-3310337.post@n5.nabble.com>
	<AANLkTi=BL7Spog2SsXyy=H=sCtyL9FwMSVG1G9dPCw=3@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=BL7Spog2SsXyy=H=sCtyL9FwMSVG1G9dPCw=3@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Scott Marlowe wrote:
> I can sustain about 5,000 transactions per second on a machine with 8
> cores (2 years old) and 14 15k seagate hard drives.
>   

Right.  You can hit 2 to 3000/second with a relatively inexpensive 
system, so long as you have a battery-backed RAID controller and a few 
hard drives.  Doing 5K writes/second is going to take a giant pile of 
hard drive or SSDs to pull off.  There is no possible way to meet the 
performance objectives here without a lot more cores in the server and 
some pretty beefy storage too.

-- 
Greg Smith   2ndQuadrant US    greg@2ndQuadrant.com   Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support        www.2ndQuadrant.us
"PostgreSQL 9.0 High Performance": http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books