X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46C869DCA0B for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2006 23:44:33 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 83188-08 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2006 23:44:37 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from mail.mi8.com (d01gw02.mi8.com [63.240.6.46]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC9209DC9AF for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2006 23:44:30 -0400 (AST) Received: from 172.16.1.112 by mail.mi8.com with ESMTP (- Welcome to Mi8 Corporation www.Mi8.com (D2)); Thu, 16 Mar 2006 22:44:30 -0500 X-Server-Uuid: 7829E76E-BB9E-4995-8473-3C0929DF7DD1 Received: from MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com ([172.16.1.160]) by D01SMTP02.Mi8.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 16 Mar 2006 22:44:30 -0500 Received: from 69.45.100.3 ([69.45.100.3]) by MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com ( [172.16.1.219]) via Exchange Front-End Server mi8owa.mi8.com ( [172.16.1.118]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 03:44:30 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.1.051004 Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 22:44:25 -0800 Subject: Re: 1 TB of memory From: "Luke Lonergan" To: "Jim Nasby" , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [PERFORM] 1 TB of memory Thread-Index: AcZJKD2QJKPp1kWbQ36iwXaGKbAGBAAZf1mu In-Reply-To: <8B16F5C8-DFC8-4694-902C-AE584E490530@pervasive.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Mar 2006 03:44:30.0721 (UTC) FILETIME=[19116710:01C64975] X-WSS-ID: 6804EF142XS29116176-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.253 required=5 tests=[RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=1.253] X-Spam-Score: 1.253 X-Spam-Level: * X-Archive-Number: 200603/261 X-Sequence-Number: 17698 Jim, > PostgreSQL tuned to the max and still too slow? Database too big to > fit into memory? Here's the solution! http://www.superssd.com/ > products/tera-ramsan/ With a single 3 Gbyte/second infiniband connection to the device? You'd be better off with 4 x $10K servers that do 800MB/s from disk each and a Bizgres MPP - then you'd do 3.2GB/s (faster than the SSD) at a price 1/10 of the SSD, and you'd have 24TB of RAID5 disk under you. Plus - need more speed? Add 12 more servers, and you'd run at 12.8GB/s and have 96TB of disk to work with, and you'd *still* spend less on HW and SW than the SSD. - Luke