Received: from localhost (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEEE19F9BB9 for ; Sun, 19 Aug 2007 18:56:00 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 26494-08 for ; Sun, 19 Aug 2007 18:55:46 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: delayed 00:06:45.320946 by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com (rv-out-0910.google.com [209.85.198.190]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EFE09F973C for ; Sun, 19 Aug 2007 18:55:49 -0300 (ADT) Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id l15so827248rvb for ; Sun, 19 Aug 2007 14:55:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.131.9 with SMTP id e9mr1443361wad.1187560142450; Sun, 19 Aug 2007 14:49:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.115.58.16 with HTTP; Sun, 19 Aug 2007 14:49:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5eaaef180708191449l370357d5t16b584ee848830ae@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 23:49:02 +0200 From: "Leon Mergen" To: "Andrew Hammond" Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Looking for database hosting Cc: "Niklas Saers" , pgsql-jobs@postgresql.org, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <5a0a9d6f0708191248t20dec076q535d85d900f565a8@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_100500_2339769.1187560142381" References: <87C876AF-0EA2-4FD6-BAA6-2E2F02182EA3@gmail.com> <5a0a9d6f0708191248t20dec076q535d85d900f565a8@mail.gmail.com> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200708/12 X-Sequence-Number: 298 ------=_Part_100500_2339769.1187560142381 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Hello, Just to note something interesting on database scalability: i'm not sure whether your database is used for processing or just data lookup, but if it's used for data lookup, look into memcached -- it's a really scalable caching system which can reduce your database load a lot. I know a lot of large websites (slashdot, livejournal, etc) use this solution -- they have dozens of gigabytes worth of memcached processes to reduce the cache hits (I'm told livejournal has around 200 of those servers running, making sure around 99.99% of the database queries are just cache hits). This probably has been discussed on this list before, but just in case: look into it. Regards, Leon Mergen On 8/19/07, Andrew Hammond wrote: > > Nik, you may be underestimating just how much performance can be obtained > from a single database server. For example, an IBM p595 server connected to > an array of ds8300 storage devices could reasonably be expected to provide > several orders of magnitude more performance when compared to commodity > hardware. In commodity space (albeit, just barely), a 16 core opteron > running (the admittedly yet-to-be-released) FreeBSD 7, and a suitably > provisioned SAN should also enormously outperform a beige-box solution, and > at a fraction of the cost. If it's performance you care about then the > pgsql-performance list (which I have cc'd) is the place to talk about it. > > I realize this doesn't address your desire to get out of database server > administration. I am not aware of any company which provides database > hosting, further I'm not entirely convinced that's a viable business > solution. The technical issues (security, latency and reliability are the > ones that immediately come to mind) associated with a hosted database server > solution suggest to me that this would not be economically viable. The > business issues around out-sourcing a critical, if not central component of > your architecture seem, at least to me, to be insurmountable. > > Andrew > > > On 8/19/07, Niklas Saers wrote: > > > > Hi, > > the company I'm doing work for is expecting a 20 times increase in > > data and seeks a 10 times increase in performance. Having pushed our > > database server to the limit daily for the past few months we have > > decided we'd prefer to be database users rather than database server > > admins. :-) > > > > Are you or can you recommend a database hosting company that is good > > for clients that require more power than what a single database > > server can offer? > > > > Cheers > > > > Nik > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to > > choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not > > match > > > > -- Leon Mergen http://www.solatis.com ------=_Part_100500_2339769.1187560142381 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Hello,

Just to note something interesting on database scalability: i'm not sure whether your database is used for processing or just data lookup, but if it's used for data lookup, look into memcached -- it's a really scalable caching system which can reduce your database load a lot.

I know a lot of large websites (slashdot, livejournal, etc) use this solution -- they have dozens of gigabytes worth of memcached processes to reduce the cache hits (I'm told livejournal has around 200 of those servers running, making sure around 99.99% of the database queries are just cache hits). This probably has been discussed on this list before, but just in case: look into it.

Regards,

Leon Mergen


On 8/19/07, Andrew Hammond <andrew.george.hammond@gmail.com> wrote:
Nik, you may be underestimating just how much performance can be obtained from a single database server. For example, an IBM p595 server connected to an array of ds8300 storage devices could reasonably be expected to provide several orders of magnitude more performance when compared to commodity hardware. In commodity space (albeit, just barely), a 16 core opteron running (the admittedly yet-to-be-released) FreeBSD 7, and a suitably provisioned SAN should also enormously outperform a beige-box solution, and at a fraction of the cost. If it's performance you care about then the pgsql-performance list (which I have cc'd) is the place to talk about it.

I realize this doesn't address your desire to get out of database server administration. I am not aware of any company which provides database hosting, further I'm not entirely convinced that's a viable business solution. The technical issues (security, latency and reliability are the ones that immediately come to mind) associated with a hosted database server solution suggest to me that this would not be economically viable. The business issues around out-sourcing a critical, if not central component of your architecture seem, at least to me, to be insurmountable.

Andrew


On 8/19/07, Niklas Saers < niklassaers@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
the company I'm doing work for is expecting a 20 times increase in
data and seeks a 10 times increase in performance. Having pushed our
database server to the limit daily for the past few months we have
decided we'd prefer to be database users rather than database server
admins. :-)

Are you or can you recommend a database hosting company that is good
for clients that require more power than what a single database
server can offer?

Cheers

    Nik

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
       choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
       match




--
Leon Mergen
http://www.solatis.com ------=_Part_100500_2339769.1187560142381--