At 08:04 PM 8/30/2005, Michael Stone wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 07:02:28PM -0400, Ron wrote:
>>purpose(s). That's why the TPC bench marked systems tend to have
>>literally 100's of HD's and they tend to be split into very focused purposes.
>
>Of course, TPC benchmark systems are constructed such that cost and
>storage capacity are irrelevant--in the real world things tend to be
>more complicated.
The scary thing is that I've worked on RW production systems that
bore a striking resemblance to a TPC benchmark system. As you can
imagine, they uniformly belonged to BIG organizations (read: lot's 'o
$$$) who were using the systems for mission critical stuff where
either it was company existence threatening for the system to be
done, or they would lose much $$$ per min of down time, or both.
Financial institutions, insurance companies, central data mines for
Fortune 2000 companies, etc _all_ build systems that push the state
of the art in how much storage can be managed and how many HDs, CPUs,
RAM DIMMs, etc are usable.
Historically, this has been the sole province of Oracle and DB2 on
the SW side and equally outrageously priced custom HW. Clearly, I'd
like to see PostgreSQL change that ;-)
Ron Peacetree
