X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2883D528B2 for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2005 14:25:01 -0300 (ADT) 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 69503-06 for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2005 17:24:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from wproxy.gmail.com (wproxy.gmail.com [64.233.184.196]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95A91528AD for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2005 14:24:55 -0300 (ADT) Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 68so29642wri for ; Thu, 09 Jun 2005 10:24:56 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Qp1sW4KK7GcxXKHgARD03d9Z/9kVpNA9IIszUlcFWzMUw6+FUVFzEgxygNzQiMOYVba4fRr1h7ZL7+wZHoWA+glVmGNouNngt8O5GYb68nCyor8dK9vAke3YdaCdtgnkYd1oy2gNp6RS1+az/x8rhV6xjR0/lp3gqcbAlicdwic= Received: by 10.54.71.7 with SMTP id t7mr471676wra; Thu, 09 Jun 2005 10:18:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.22.15 with HTTP; Thu, 9 Jun 2005 10:18:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 12:18:15 -0500 From: Matthew Nuzum Reply-To: newz@bearfruit.org To: Rory Campbell-Lange Subject: Re: Help specifying new web server/database machine Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <20050609164420.GA3649@campbell-lange.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <20050608163418.GA3327@campbell-lange.net> <20050609164420.GA3649@campbell-lange.net> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.109 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, RCVD_BY_IP X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200506/220 X-Sequence-Number: 12857 On 6/9/05, Rory Campbell-Lange wrote: > Disks: >=20 > I'm somewhat confused here. I've followed the various notes about SATA > vs SCSI and it seems that SCSI is the way to go. On a four-slot 1U > server, would one do a single RAID10 over 4 disks 10000rpm U320 disks? > I would run the database in its own partition, separate from the rest of > the OS, possible on LVM. An LSI-Megaraid-2 appears to be the card of > choice. >=20 Can you tell us about your application? How much data will you have, what is your ratio of reads to writes, how tollerant to data loss are you? (for example, some people load their data in batches and if they loose their data its no big deal, others would have heart failure if a few transactions were lost) If your application is 95% writes then people will suggest drastically different hardware than if your application is 95% selects. Here is an example of one of my servers: application is 95+% selects, has 15GB of data (counting indexes), low tollerance for data loss, runs on a 1 GHz P3 Compaq server with mirrored 35 GB IDE disks and 1.6GB of RAM. Application response time is aproximately .1 second to serve a request on a moderately loaded server. --=20 Matthew Nuzum www.bearfruit.org