Re: Hardware Recommendations
От | Steve Wolfe |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Hardware Recommendations |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 001101c11554$325d5c60$50824e40@iboats.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Hardware Recommendations ("Gregory Wood" <gregw@com-stock.com>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
> With all of that in mind... we were looking at a Dual PIII 1GHz w/2GB SDRAM > (god I love cheap RAM) and a 10K RPM SCSI drive. I'd love to hear any > suggestions, comments, etc. We'd also like to know if anyone recommends > upgrading to Xeons or quad processors. I happen to run a quad Xeon, and at the time that we bought it, it was the best machine we could get in terms of price for the performance that we needed. However, there are some serious drawbacks. First and formost, the 100 MHz bus is shared for all four processors, giving each processor an effective 25 MHz bus under load. Not good. Also, Xeons and related motherboards are very expensive, and the speeds don't go as high as the commodity processors. If I were to set up another machine now, I'd use a dual Athlon. For not much more than the dual P3 would cost you, you could have a 2.4 GHz machine with DDR RAM - and here's the real kicker, the dual Athlon boards have a seperate 266 MHz bus to *each* processor, and a 266 MHz bus to the RAM - so it's like each CPU having a 256 MHz bus to the chipset, and a 133 MHz bus to the RAM - about 5 times the bandwidth that a Xeon has in a quad-configuration, and twice what a P3 would have. It's a win in every regard over the Xeons and P3's, in my opinion. As for the disk, the disk speed isn't terribly important, provided that you're not using fsync() and have plenty of RAM for caching. On our quad Xeon with 1.5 GB's, the disk lights only blink very occasionally. However, we do use RAID 5 + hot spare for redundancy, so that a disk failure won't take us down. steve
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: