While we are on the hardware subject, why not replace the PIII
with Xeons? Either PII or PIII.
Rudy
On 24 Aug 99, at 3:30, Michael Richards wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Matthew Hixson wrote:
>
> > I'm going to be working on a project soon that involves an SQL
> > database. If
> > I have my way it will be using PostgreSQL 6.5 on a dual PII-350 with 256
> > MB of RAM and two 18GB UW2 SCSI drives (Seagate Barracudas). However
> > there is a possibility that it could be running on an NT server with
> > even beefier hardware.
> If you're planning on doing some heavy database processing and have the
> funds, I'd suggest using smaller drives with a RAID controller. Large
> drives such as the 18Gb store to much data per platter and as a result end
> up a little IO bound when you're doing heavy processing.
>
> I'd suggest using a *BSD, ie FreeBSD, as it's filsystem performance is
> much better than something like ext2. As for the large table size, I ran a
> postgres database with 15,000,000 tuples once. It was 6.3, and the vacuum
> process was particularily nasty, but I don't think you will have any
> problems with 6.5.
>
> We're currently testing a system with about 1.2 million records with 6.5
> and it outperforms SQL server 6 by quite a lot. It's running on a dual P3
> with a 4 9.1 gig Cheetah array on a DPT controller running RAID0. I'm
> pretty happy with it...
>
> If you want to look at another aspect, even if Postgres didn't perform
> quite as well as SQL server, consider about $1k for an NT server license
> and $2k for a 10 client SQL server license.... put that moolah into
> hardware and you're ahead again...
>
> -Michael
>
>
> ************
>
>
