X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89408DB847 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:46:43 -0400 (AST) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 74838-02 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2005 18:46:42 +0000 (GMT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from mail.Mi8.com (d01gw01.mi8.com [63.240.6.47]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D34BCDB82E for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:46:40 -0400 (AST) Received: from 172.16.1.110 by mail.Mi8.com with ESMTP (- Welcome to Mi8 Corporation www.Mi8.com (D1)); Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:46:28 -0500 X-Server-Uuid: 241911D6-425B-44B9-A073-E3FE0F8FC774 Received: from MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com ([172.16.1.175]) by D01SMTP01.Mi8.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:46:13 -0500 Received: from 67.103.45.218 ([67.103.45.218]) by MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com ( [172.16.1.219]) via Exchange Front-End Server mi8owa.mi8.com ( [172.16.1.105]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:46:12 -0500 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.1.051004 Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 10:46:12 -0800 Subject: Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases ( From: "Luke Lonergan" To: "Merlin Moncure" cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [PERFORM] Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases ( 5TB) Thread-Index: AcXpvzV5hVFHPWZkSgW5F5EVOZa9hQALkdOwAAEU6wAAACrUAAABI4TAAAdz7qk= In-Reply-To: <6EE64EF3AB31D5448D0007DD34EEB3417DD898@Herge.rcsinc.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Nov 2005 18:46:13.0183 (UTC) FILETIME=[DA4074F0:01C5EA14] X-WSS-ID: 6F64F28B21G11158571-04-01 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=B_3214896372_20825418 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.254 required=5 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=1.253] X-Spam-Score: 1.254 X-Spam-Level: * X-Archive-Number: 200511/254 X-Sequence-Number: 15511 > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3214896372_20825418 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Merlin, On 11/15/05 7:20 AM, "Merlin Moncure" wrote: >=20 > It's hard to say what would be better. My gut says the 5u box would be > a lot better at handling high cpu/high concurrency problems...like your > typical business erp backend. This is pure speculation of course...I'll > defer to the experts here. With Oracle RAC, which is optimized for OLTP and uses a shared memory caching model, maybe or maybe not. I=B9d put my money on the SMP in that cas= e as you suggest, but what happens when the OS dies? For data warehousing, OLAP and decision support applications, RAC and other shared memory/disk architectures don=B9t do you any good and the SMP machine is better by a bit. However, if you have an MPP database, where disk and memory are not shared, then the SMP machine is tens or hundreds of times slower than the cluster o= f the same price. - Luke=20 --B_3214896372_20825418 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: [PERFORM] Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases ( 5TB)= Merli= n,

On 11/15/05 7:20 AM, "Merlin Moncure" <merlin.moncure@rcsonlin= e.com> wrote:

It's hard to say what would be better.  My gut says the 5u box would b= e
a lot better at handling high cpu/high concurrency problems...like your
typical business erp backend.  This is pure speculation of course...I'= ll
defer to the experts here.

With Oracle RAC, which is optimized for OLTP and uses a shared memory cachi= ng model, maybe or maybe not.  I’d put my money on the SMP in tha= t case as you suggest, but what happens when the OS dies?

For data warehousing, OLAP and decision support applications, RAC and other= shared memory/disk architectures don’t do you any good and the SMP ma= chine is better by a bit.

However, if you have an MPP database, where disk and memory are not shared,= then the SMP machine is tens or hundreds of times slower than the cluster o= f the same price.

- Luke
--B_3214896372_20825418--