From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
Cc: | Anjan Dave <adave(at)vantage(dot)com>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Tuning for mid-size server |
Date: | 2003-10-21 17:12:15 |
Message-ID: | 200310211012.15845.josh@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Scott,
> Also, if it's a read only environment, RAID5 with n drives equals the
> performance of RAID0 with n-1 drives.
True.
> Josh, you gotta get out more. IA32 has supported >4 gig ram for a long
> time now, and so has the linux kernel. It uses a paging method to do it.
> Individual processes are still limited to ~3 gig on Linux on 32 bit
> hardware though, so the extra mem will almost certainly spend it's time as
> kernel cache.
Not that you'd want a sigle process to grow that large anyway.
So what is the ceiling on 32-bit processors for RAM? Most of the 64-bit
vendors are pushing Athalon64 and G5 as "breaking the 4GB barrier", and even
I can do the math on 2^32. All these 64-bit vendors, then, are talking
about the limit on ram *per application* and not per machine?
This has all been academic to me to date, as the only very-high-ram systems
I've worked with were Sparc or micros.
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2003-10-21 17:13:53 | Re: Low Insert/Update Performance |
Previous Message | Anjan Dave | 2003-10-21 17:02:08 | Re: Tuning for mid-size server |