On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 10:21 -0700, Scott Marlowe wrote: > On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Scott Carey <scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Lucky you, having needs that are fulfilled by sequential reads. :) > > I wonder how many hard drives it would take to be CPU bound on random > access patterns? About 40 to 60? And probably 15k / SAS drives to > boot. Cause that's what we're looking at in the next few years where > I work. I was able to achieve only 10-20% IO/Wait even after beating the heck out of the machine with 50 spindles (of course it does have 16 CPUs): http://www.commandprompt.com/blogs/joshua_drake/2008/04/is_that_performance_i_smell_ext2_vs_ext3_on_50_spindles_testing_for_postgresql/ > -- PostgreSQL Consulting, Development, Support, Training 503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997 -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
