Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Major use of that cluster would be to have add/delete/edit operations on individual records based on primary key.

Database itself is not complicated but main concern is handling the operations on that amount of data efficiently.

And database would be mysql and what amount of RAM would you suggest?

share|improve this question

closed as not constructive by Iain, pauska, Scott Pack, sysadmin1138 Jul 19 '11 at 16:38

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

This question is way too vague. Trillion can be either 10^12 or 10^18 for starters. – Iain Jul 19 '11 at 16:19
its 10^12 why it should be 10^18? :o – Gary Lindahl Jul 19 '11 at 16:40
ah sorry for that confusion.. I meant 10^12. – Gary Lindahl Jul 19 '11 at 16:49
One hundred billion dollars! </drevil> – Tom O'Connor Jul 19 '11 at 16:49

And database would be mysql

Mysql is seriously inadequate for the task.

Get Db2. On mainfarmes. Call IBM. I mean LARGE mainframe.

NOTHING scales like DB2.

ANY idea what you talk her?

what amount of RAM would you suggest?

What amount of DISC space? What amount of IOPS you need?

Hm, maybe call oracle. Their EXADATA stuff should scale up like that - cost is some millions for that.

RAM is not your problem, the rest is, or you cluster into thousands of nodes.

share|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.