From: "Lionel" <lionel@art-informatique.com>
Subject: Re: Which hardware ?
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:49:17 +0200
Organization: Hub.Org Networking Services
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <g38ite$26gp$1@news.hub.org>
References: <g38epm$2pl4$1@news.hub.org>
	<20080617142501.GG68434@commandprompt.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org

Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> You won't need lots of processer, then.

can't find less than quad core for this price range...

> How big's the database?

with 20 millions of rows, the main table is 3.5 Go on win XP.
With 8 Go of indexes.

I estimate the whole database around 30 Go / year

>  If you can have enough memory to hold the
> whole thing, including all indexes, in memory, that's what you want.
> Apart from that, "dual SATA2" is probably underpowered.  But. . .

RAID is twice more expansive.
(600euros/month for a 5x750Go SATA2 with 12Gb of ram and unnecessary 2x quad 
core)

didn't find any RAID 10 "not too expansive" dedicated server.

If this setup is twice as fast, I can afford it. But if it a 30sec VS 
40sec...I'm not sure my customer will pay.

>> Which OS would you use ? (knowing that there will be a JDK 1.6
>> installed too)
>
> . . .I think this is the real mistake.  Get a separate database box.
> It's approximately impossible to tune a box correctly for both your
> application and your database, in my experience.

My tomcat webapp is well coded  and consumes nearly nothing.
On such powerful hardware, I prefer to run both on the same server.
I could eventually run it on a different server, much less powerfull, but 
it's not on the same network, I guess this would be an issue.