| From: | Jeff <threshar(at)torgo(dot)978(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com, adave(at)vantage(dot)com, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Tuning for mid-size server |
| Date: | 2003-10-21 17:50:15 |
| Message-ID: | 20031021135015.15bb8bb5.threshar@torgo.978.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 10:12:15 -0700
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> 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?
You can have > 4GB per app, but also you get a big performance boost as
you don't have to deal with all the silly paging - think of it from when
we switched from real mode to protected mode.
If you check out hte linux-kernel archives you'll see one of the things
often recommended when things go odd is to turn off HIMEM support.
--
Jeff Trout <jeff(at)jefftrout(dot)com>
http://www.jefftrout.com/
http://www.stuarthamm.net/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2003-10-21 17:50:17 | Re: Tuning for mid-size server |
| Previous Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2003-10-21 17:48:52 | Re: Tuning for mid-size server |