Back in the day, we got good performance from similar sized tables using VMS, a small VAX with only 256MB RAM and narrow SCSI 1GB disks. The RDBMS was DEC's own Rdb/VMS. A "small" mainframe (6 MIPS, 8MB RAM) also gave good performance.
So, this old curmudgeon asks, why such beefy h/w for such small databases. On Sat, 2003-07-12 at 13:25, Nikolaus Dilger wrote: > Alexandre, > > Since you want the fastest speed I would do the 2 data > disks in RAID 0 (striping) not RAID 1 (mirroring). > > If you would care about not loosing any transactions > you would keep all 3 disks in RAID 5. > > Don't know the answer to the Hyperthreading question. > Why don't you run a test to find out? > > Regards, > Nikolaus > > On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:43:25 -0300 (BRT), "alexandre > arruda paes :: aldeia digital" wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > I have this machine with a 10 million records: > > * Dual Xeon 2.0 (HyperThreading enabled), 3 7200 SCSI > , > > Adaptec 2110S, > > RAID 5 - 32k chunk size, 1 GB Ram DDR 266 ECC, RH 8.0 > - > > 2.4.18 > > > > The database is mirrored with contrib/dbmirror in a P4 > > 1 Gb Ram + IDE > > > > If a disk failure occurs, I can use the server in the > > mirror. > > > > I will format the main server in this weekend and I > > have seen in the list > > some people that recomends a Software RAID instead HW. > > > > I think too remove the RAID 5 and turn a RAID 1 for > > data in 2 HDs. > > SO, WAL and swap in the thrid HD. > > > > My questions: > > > > 1) I will see best disk performance changing the disk > > layout like above > > 2) HyperThreading really improve a procces basead > > program, like postgres -- +-----------------------------------------------------------+ | Ron Johnson, Jr. Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | Jefferson, LA USA http://members.cox.net/ron.l.johnson | | | | 4 degrees from Vladimir Putin +-----------------------------------------------------------+ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]