Re: [PERFORMANCE] Buying hardware - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Matthew Wakeling
Subject Re: [PERFORMANCE] Buying hardware
Date
Msg-id alpine.DEB.1.10.0901261203450.4317@aragorn.flymine.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PERFORMANCE] Buying hardware  (Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [PERFORMANCE] Buying hardware
Re: [PERFORMANCE] Buying hardware
List pgsql-performance
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> More cores is more important than faster but fewer
>
> Again, more slower disks > fewer slower ones.

Not necessarily. It depends what you are doing. If you're going to be
running only one database connection at a time, doing really big complex
queries, then having really fast CPUs and discs is better than having
lots. However, that situation is rare.

> RAID-10 is almost always the right choice.

Agreed. Unless you don't care about the data and need the space, where
RAID 0 might be useful, or if you really don't need the space, where RAID
1 might be okay. If your controller supports it.

Matthew

--
 The third years are wandering about all worried at the moment because they
 have to hand in their final projects. Please be sympathetic to them, say
 things like "ha-ha-ha", but in a sympathetic tone of voice
                                        -- Computer Science Lecturer

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Thomas Finneid
Date:
Subject: Re: strange index performance?
Next
From: Matthew Wakeling
Date:
Subject: Re: postgresql 8.3 tps rate