On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 04:49:17PM +0200, Lionel wrote: >> My tomcat webapp is well coded and consumes nearly nothing. > > If I were ever inclined to say, "Nonsense," about code I've never > seen, this is probably the occasion on which I'd do it. A running JVM > is necessarily going to use some memory, and that is memory use that > you won't be able to factor out properly when developing models of > your database system performance.
But if that amount of memory is 256 Megs and it only ever acts as a control panel or data access point, it's probably not a huge issue. If it's 2 Gig it's another issue. It's all about scale. The real performance hog for me on all in one boxes has been perl / fastcgi setups. > The power of the system is hard to know about in the context (with > only 8Go of memory, I don't consider this a powerful box at all, > note). I always think of main memory in terms of how high a cache hit rate it can get me. If 8G gets you a 50% hit rate, and 16G gets you a 95% hit rate, then 16G is the way to go. But if 8G gets you to 75% and 32G gets you to 79% because of your usage patterns (the world isn't always bell curve shaped) then 8G is plenty and it's time to work on faster disk subsystems if you need more performance. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance