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. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
