On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 13:45 -0500, James Bennett wrote: > On 10/16/06, Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The server is rather new. 2GB of memory with a top grade Opteron (not > > sure which). Once again, the server is running with low load for most > > of the day, and as much as I want to, I have hard time believing its > > the server that is to blame. > > FWIW, I wouldn't run a high-traffic DB server on anything less than > 4-6GB of RAM, and I wouldn't really feel happy until I had 8.
Whilst I know what you're saying, these are the things one needs to benchmark if you really care about minimums. More memory can never hurt and, usually, more CPUs aren't a bad thing either. Along with number of connections, connection creation frequency, database size, query complexity and result size can all have an effect on the required numbers (in truly bizarre ways sometimes). Just for reference, I've had multiple PostgreSQL servers in operation that handle real-time stock prices and trades from the Hong Kong stock exchange with 2 GB of RAM and a couple of hundred persistent connections it ran comfortably for a long time (that system now has a lot more memory in the database machines, but that's partly because the sweet spot for pricing came down and we wanted to push out the maximums it could sustain). Regards Malcolm --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
