Re: PostgreSQL HardWare
От | Steve Wolfe |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PostgreSQL HardWare |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 002901c19562$e2978900$d281f6cc@iboats.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: PostgreSQL HardWare (Chris Albertson <chrisalbertson90278@yahoo.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: PostgreSQL HardWare
|
Список | pgsql-general |
> I think your hardware is overkill. Any low end > box would work for you. But if you have MANY users trying > to query this data all at once the hardware may be needed. > I don't think you need that Second CPU _unless_ you plan > for many concurent client conections or if the server will > be performing other services (apache, mail, NFS....) at the > same time. Adding a second CPU to a machine you're building yourself costs a (relatively) very small amount of money, but nearly doubles the capacity of the machine, and greatly extends it's useful lifetime. I think that the benefits far outweigh the cost - adding a second CPU may add 20% (or less) to the cost of the machine, but get you an 80% increase in capacity. As an example, I have an old dual Pentium-133 that I picked up for $40. Comparing it to using a machine with a single 650 MHz P3, the little machine is usually MORE responsive, and always at least nearly as responsive. Very CPU-intensive apps do take longer, but overall the machine is extremely pleasant to work on. When you compare the significant performance difference between a Pentium 133 and a P3/650, I think that says a LOT about the merits of multi-processor systems. For production servers, it's a pretty rare day when I wouldn't fork over $40 more for a dual CPU board, and buy a second processor. Or, if money was tight, I'd buy the board, and get the second CPU in a month or two. : ) (And, hey, the first time you see a PCI device using IRQ 27, it makes you take a double-take!) steve
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: