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 119FB9DCBC2 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2006 15:45:30 -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 89485-08 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2006 15:45:27 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from xproxy.gmail.com (xproxy.gmail.com [66.249.82.192]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A97BA9DCA67 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2006 15:45:24 -0400 (AST) Received: by xproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i31so848654wxd for ; Mon, 06 Mar 2006 11:45:26 -0800 (PST) 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=UIg3IQLFGLhp2eibaZbjaPjEe0sEg7Rblr4Q8jcrDej2hUMFmOYXrslo/ds8P9dPsLUDWecuTkJqiUOIINpZuFoLesdCeMvHj2LIwhDJFvgkK37s+3WJjnJpOi6ieD7py8GTgvhUOJEdbvP8eMf5F+I4mFjrXmtj45v9tOG4o6s= Received: by 10.70.112.5 with SMTP id k5mr138516wxc; Mon, 06 Mar 2006 11:45:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.70.128.2 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Mar 2006 11:45:25 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 13:45:25 -0600 From: "Matthew Nuzum" Reply-To: newz@bearfruit.org To: "Marc G. Fournier" , "Nagita Karunaratne" Subject: Re: Postgres on VPS - how much is enough? Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <20060306131355.A1227@ganymede.hub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060306131355.A1227@ganymede.hub.org> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.229 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.229] X-Spam-Score: 0.229 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200603/41 X-Sequence-Number: 17478 On 3/6/06, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, Matthew Nuzum wrote: > > My problem with running PG inside of a VPS was that the VPS used a > > virtual filesystem... basically, a single file that had been formatted > > and loop mounted so that it looked like a regular hard drive. > > Unfortunately, it was very slow. The difference between my application > > and yours is that mine well more than filled the 1GB of RAM that I had > > allocated. If your data will fit comfortably into RAM then you may be > > fine. > > We host VPSs here (http://www.hub.org) and don't use the 'single file, > virtual file system' to put them into ... it must depend on where you > host? That's true... I hope I didn't imply that I am anti-vps, I run my own servers and one of them is dedicated to doing VPS for different applications. I think they're wonderful. On 3/6/06, Nagita Karunaratne wrote: > From personal experience, would you run Postgres on a linux machine > (NOT a vps) with 512MB of ram? > > Assumining I can keep all my data in memory. Nagita, It all depends on performance... I have one postgres database that runs on a Pentium 350MHz with 128MB of RAM. It does 1 insert per minute 24 hours per day. Because the load is so low, I can get away with minimal hardware. If your application has a lot of inserts/updates then disk speed is important and can vary greatly from one VPS to another. If your application is not time-critical than this may be a moot point anyw= ay. -- Matthew Nuzum www.bearfruit.org