Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([98.129.198.125])
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <lists@turnkey.bz>) id 1THJwS-0005lt-UN
	for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 19:40:13 +0000
Received: from dime159.dizinc.com ([66.7.216.77])
	by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <lists@turnkey.bz>) id 1THJwQ-0005GG-6j
	for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 19:40:11 +0000
Received: from [200.32.232.82] (port=54896 helo=[10.12.0.55])
	by dime159.dizinc.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77)
	(envelope-from <lists@turnkey.bz>)
	id 1THJwO-0001Nf-Oy; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 15:40:08 -0400
Message-ID: <5064AB91.5000103@turnkey.bz>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 13:40:01 -0600
From: "M. D." <lists@turnkey.bz>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:15.0) Gecko/20120827 Thunderbird/15.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>
CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: hardware advice
References: <5064A4DC.5090304@turnkey.bz>
	<CAGTBQpYWepA3-su2tHDa276KSwznLSyUVGj_rquyKrtR+z9oxw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAGTBQpYWepA3-su2tHDa276KSwznLSyUVGj_rquyKrtR+z9oxw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse,
	please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - dime159.dizinc.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - postgresql.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - turnkey.bz
X-Source: 
X-Source-Args: 
X-Source-Dir: 
X-Pg-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)
X-Archive-Number: 201209/158
X-Sequence-Number: 47904

On 09/27/2012 01:22 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 4:11 PM, M. D. <lists@turnkey.bz> wrote:
>> At this point I'm dealing with a fairly small database of 8 to 9 GB.
> ...
>> The on_hand lookup table
>> currently has 3 million rows after 4 years of data.
> ...
>> For both servers I'd have at least 32GB Ram and 4 Hard Drives in raid 10.
> For a 9GB database, that amount of RAM seams like overkill to me.
> Unless you expect to grow a lot faster than you've been growing, or
> perhaps your middle tier consumes a lot of those 32GB, I don't see the
> point there.
>
The middle tier does caching and can easily take up to 10GB of RAM, 
therefore I'm buying more.