From: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: 7.4 Press Release -- Draft #4 |
Date: | 2003-07-28 13:51:21 |
Message-ID: | 200307280951.21232.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Saturday 26 July 2003 17:04, Sean Chittenden wrote:
> > - Takes full advantage of large (>4GB) memory configurations on
> > numerous 64 bit platforms including AMD Opteron, HP/Compaq Alpha,
> > Sun UltraSPARC, MIPS, PA-RISC, and RS6000*
>
> This bullet is really lacking punch now. 64 bit CPUs aren't used
> _just_ for additional memory access. I didn't look too closely to see
> when they came in (before or after this email), but there were a few
> quotes and bits about 64bit platforms that had better ring than this.
> As it stands, I read, "we run on wherever GCC and the OS can run,"
> which is true, but neglects that it's somewhat battle proven on
> Opteron and the other CPU's/OS'es mentioned. We really do _support_
> Opteron in the sense that there are #ifdef's in our code to make sure
> that performance on Opteron doesn't suck(tm).
>
> > - Adds support for the AMD Opteron, increasing the list of 64bit
> > platforms supported. Supported 64bit platforms include HP/Compaq
> > Alpha, Sun UltraSPARC, MIPS, PA-RISC, RS6000*, and AMD Opteron.
> >
- Is now optmized for the AMD Opteron, increasing the family of 64-bit
platforms supported which already includes HP/Compaq, Alpha, Sun UltraSPARC,
MIPS, PA-RISC, and RS6000*. 64-bit platforms are designed to be a new class
of high-performance computing, with greater levels of computing power and
scaleability needed for enterprise level systems.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2003-07-28 16:37:23 | Re: benchmarks |
Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2003-07-28 13:30:40 | Re: benchmarks |