X-Original-To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (developer.postgresql.org [64.117.224.193]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E6F9925415 for ; Fri, 30 May 2003 10:25:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from developer.postgresql.org ([64.117.224.193]) by localhost (developer.postgresql.org [64.117.224.193:10024]) (amavisd-new) with ESMTP id 06998-06 for ; Fri, 30 May 2003 10:25:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailhub1.sghms.ac.uk (firewall.sghms.ac.uk [194.82.50.2]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65551925253 for ; Fri, 30 May 2003 10:25:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [194.82.51.24] (helo=imail) by mailhub1.sghms.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Lkr7-0000Ki-00 for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Fri, 30 May 2003 15:27:41 +0100 Received: from [172.16.20.3] (mrc1-003.sghms.ac.uk [172.16.20.3]) by imail.sghms.ac.uk (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.7 (built May 7 2002)) with ESMTPA id <0HFP000BLENFEZ@imail.sghms.ac.uk> for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Fri, 30 May 2003 15:23:39 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 15:23:28 +0100 From: Adam Witney Subject: Hardware advice To: pgsql-performance Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.1.2418 X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact sysadmin at sghms.ac.uk for more information X-MailScanner-MH1: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-100, required 5, USER_AGENT_ENTOURAGE, USER_IN_WHITELIST) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new X-Archive-Number: 200305/274 X-Sequence-Number: 2053 Hi, I am in the process of pricing up boxes for our database, and I was wondering if anyone had any recommendations or comments. The database itself will have around 100-150 users mostly accessing through a PHP/apache interface. I don't expect lots of simultaneous activity, however users will often be doing multiple table joins (can be up to 10-15 tables in one query). Also they will often be pulling out on the order of 250,000 rows (5-10 numeric fields per row), processing the data (I may split this to a second box) and then writing back ~20,000 rows of data (2-3 numeric fields per row). Estimating total amount of data is quite tricky, but it could grow to 100-250Gb over the next 3 years. I have priced one box from the Dell web site as follows Single Intel Xeon 2.8GHz with 512kb L2 cache 2GB RAM 36Gb 10,000rpm Ultra 3 160 SCSI 36Gb 10,000rpm Ultra 3 160 SCSI 146Gb 10,000rpm U320 SCSI 146Gb 10,000rpm U320 SCSI 146Gb 10,000rpm U320 SCSI PERC 3/DC RAID Controller (128MB Cache) RAID1 for 2x 36Gb drives RAID5 for 3x 146Gb drives Running RedHat Linux 8.0 This configuration would be pretty much the top of our budget (~ =A35k). I was planning on having the RAID1 setup for the OS and then the RAID5 for the db files. Would it be better to have a dual 2.4GHz setup rather than a single 2.8GHz or would it not make much difference? Does the RAID setup look ok, or would anyone forsee problems in this context? (This machine can take a maximum of 5 internal drives). Am I overdoing any particular component at the expense of another? Any other comments would be most welcome. Thanks for any help Adam --=20 This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.