From: | Rosser Schwarz <rosser(dot)schwarz(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Merlin Moncure <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com>, Miles Keaton <mileskeaton(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: which dual-CPU hardware/OS is fastest for PostgreSQL? |
Date: | 2005-01-11 14:52:10 |
Message-ID: | 37d451f7050111065243fc660@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
while you weren't looking, Greg Stark wrote:
> Back in the day, we used to have problems with our 1U dual pentiums. We
> attributed it to heat accelerating failure. I would fear four opterons in 1U
> would be damned hard to cool effectively, no?
Opterons actually run pretty coolly, comparatively. If it's a big
concern, you can always drop a few more clams for the low-voltage
versions -- available in 1.4 and 2.0 GHz flavors, and of which I've
heard several accounts of their being run successfully /without/
active cooling -- or punt until later this year, when they ship
Winchester core Opterons (90nm SOI -- the current, uniprocessor
silicon fabbed with that process has some 3W heat dissipation idle,
~30W under full load; as a point of contrast, current 90nm P4s have
34W idle dissipation, and some 100W peak).
We have a number of 1U machines (P4s, I believe), and a Dell blade
server (six or seven P3 machines in a 3U cabinet) as our webservers,
and none of them seem to have any trouble with heat. That's actually
a bigger deal than it might first seem, given how frighteningly
crammed with crap our machine room is.
/rls
--
:wq
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Richard_D_Levine | 2005-01-11 14:54:37 | Re: PostgreSQL vs. Oracle vs. Microsoft |
Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2005-01-11 14:44:21 | Re: which dual-CPU hardware/OS is fastest for PostgreSQL? |