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.