Re: Hardware estimation
От | scott.marlowe |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Hardware estimation |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.33.0211110814340.22734-100000@css120.ihs.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Hardware estimation (vzebulum@yahoo.com.br (Vidal)) |
Список | pgsql-general |
On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, Vidal Salem Zebulum wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "scott.marlowe" <scott.marlowe@ihs.com> > To: "Vidal" <vzebulum@yahoo.com.br> > Cc: <pgsql-general@postgresql.org> > Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 3:08 PM > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Hardware estimation > > > > On 5 Nov 2002, Vidal wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I am a first timer in this forum. We have an application using > > > Postgre Database with a considerable growth expected for the next > > > year. We are facing some dificulties to estimate the equipment we´ll > > > need and I would like to exchange ideas about: > > > > > > - hardware estimation > > > - performance concerns > > > > > > with anyone that faced Postgre applications with more than 150Gb. > > > > > > I am talking about a database that will achieve: > > > > > > - 200Gb total space > > > - 2 major space cosuming tables (400 million and 50 million tuples) > > > - major system process - batch process reading from and writing to > > > text files (telephony records) - aprox 2 million records processed > > > (read or written every day) > > > > > > Operating System : Linux > > > > > > Equipment we are planning: > > > - IBM xSeries 255 4 Intel Xeon 1.5GHz, MP, 512KB Cache, 2GB RAM, > > > External Storage System(IBM SSA) > > > > Are you going to be supporting a fair number of simo users, or is this > > gonna be mostly a single batch at a time operation? > > > > If you're mostly gonna be running single user batch files for all the > > heavy lifting, save the money you'd spend on a quad Xeon and spend it on > > more / bigger / faster drive arrays and faster individual CPUs, like a > > dual Athlon 2800. > > > > But maybe the multi-user part is still very important to your uses. If > > so... > > > > If you are looking at a quad Xeon, then take a look at going all the way > > to 64 bit architecture (Ultra Sparc, HP, P6xx IBM, Itanium 2) where you > > can throw scads of memory at your problems and postgresql can access it. > > > > You might find a dual Ultra Sparc will outrun the quad xeon due to better > > memory access, larger caches (8Meg L2 cache), and being able to put > > ungodly amounts of memory into the machine. > > > > Some of the "low end" 64 bit machines are not any more expensive than a > > quad xeon can run. > > > > A quad 1GHz Power4 with 8 gig ram, dual 36 Gig drives and all the fixings > > goes for $44,000. That's with 64 Meg L3 cache. > > > > > Mr Scott, > > > Thanks for the prompt response. > > Our processes will be mostly batch ones. On line activity will be restricted > to a few users. And for some on-line process we will use consolidated data. > But all batch processes will have to use the tables with 50M and 500M > records. > > We will strongly consider your option for external storage. We would rather > relay on a Risc arquitecture due to the I/O effort of our batch processes. > Our IBM rep then raised a problem: there was no linux driver in > thePower3(P610) for the external storage solution we wanted. Then they > mentioned the possibility to use the quad Xeon solution. We will still push > them and HP for a Risc solution with external storafe. Your statement > enforce this choice. Thanks for that. > > Do you think we should have problems with Postgre at that database size > assuming we will take double care with tunning ? Do you know anyone with > similar volume ? There are LOTS of postgresql installations out there with gigabytes of data. Take a search through the pgsql-general and pgsql-hackers list for "large database" or "gigabyte" and you should find a few folks who are running hundreds of gigs of data on postgresql.
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: