| From: | "Mitch Vincent" <mitch(at)huntsvilleal(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "The Hermit Hacker" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, "Don Baccus" <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: system usage stats (Was: Re: Why Not MySQL? ) |
| Date: | 2000-05-04 14:22:24 |
| Message-ID: | 019101bfb5d4$2b097ec0$4100000a@venux.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Well well. Mitch gets his dual PIII board/processors -- I guess I sold the
idea to the boss-man :-)
- Mitch
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
To: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>; Mitch Vincent
<mitch(at)huntsvilleal(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 9:55 AM
Subject: Re: system usage stats (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Why Not MySQL? )
> At 10:33 AM 5/4/00 -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> >Wait, correct me if I'm wrong, but the more powerful CPU is in your
> >development server?
> >
> >My understanding is that a Celeron is a chop'd up PII ... my first
> >recommendation here is that if you are running a *server*, get rid of
that
> >Celeron ... from what I've been told about the difference, Celeron is a
> >great, cheap chip for using in a desktop environment (its what I use at
> >home), but shy away from it in a server environment, as the speed
> >reduction of the reduced cache alone will hurt things ...
>
> Celerons have a smaller L2 cache (128K) than PIIs (512K), but it runs
> full-speed rather than 1/2 speed like the PII cache. Current models
> aren't "chopped up" in any sense, they're the same core with a smaller
> but faster cache.
>
> So, applications that have a high cache hit rate can actually run faster
> on the Celeron.
>
> New Coppermine PIII's (those that end in E or are > 600 MHz) have
> 256K full-speed cache, the Coppermine-based Celeron II's 128K
> full-speed. Yes, they cut the cache size in half compared to
> PII's and non-E PIII's (Katmai cores) but it's full-speed, which
> turns out to be a win for nearly all applications. Other than
> cache size and FSB/memory bus speed the new Celerons and PIII's
> are identical.
>
> All Celerons run with 66 MHz FSB and RAM, current Coppermines with
> 100 MHz RAM (even those with a 133MHz front-side bus) or spendy
> RDRAM which almost no one is buying.
>
> So, what's the bottom line? The numbers don't tell us much,
> though I still think Tom's right that the PG7.0 one is really
> slower. You just can't say if how MUCH slower.
>
>
>
> - Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
> Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
> Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
> http://donb.photo.net.
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Don Baccus | 2000-05-04 14:25:13 | Re: system usage stats (Was: Re: Why Not MySQL? ) |
| Previous Message | Don Baccus | 2000-05-04 13:55:44 | Re: system usage stats (Was: Re: Why Not MySQL? ) |