Message-ID: <4D82F958.3080805@krogh.cc>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 07:19:04 +0100
From: Jesper Krogh <jesper@krogh.cc>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
	rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101208 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Request for feedback on hardware for a new database
 server
References: <871v25jlnb.fsf@googlemail.com>
In-Reply-To: <871v25jlnb.fsf@googlemail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 2011-03-18 01:51, Oliver Charles wrote:
> Hello,
>
> At MusicBrainz we're looking to get a new database server, and are
> hoping to buy this in the next couple of days. I'm mostly a software
> guy, but I'm posting this on behalf of Rob, who's actually going to be
> buying the hardware. Here's a quote of what we're looking to get:

I think most of it has been said already:
* Battery backed write cache
* See if you can get enough memory to make all of your "active"
    dataset fit in memory. (typically not that hard in 2011).
* Dependent on your workload of-course, you're typically not
   bottlenecked by the amount of cpu-cores, so strive for fewer
   faster cores.
* As few sockets as you can screeze you memory and cpu-requirements
   onto.
* If you can live with (or design around) the tradeoffs with SSD it
   will buy you way more performance than any significant number
   of rotating drives. (a good backup plan with full WAL-log to a second
   system as an example).


-- 
Jesper