Re: Quad Xeon vs. Dual Itanium

From: Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>
To: Dann Corbit <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com>
Cc: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Quad Xeon vs. Dual Itanium
Date: 2004-02-14 03:56:28
Message-ID: 402D9C6C.2070601@paradise.net.nz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

No disagreement from me about the 64-bit *hardware* and *os*...

Now suppose you want to run a Pg database for such a situation.... may
as well compile 32-bit.

Why ? well you *dont* want to set shared_buffers to 20G... in fact 200M
works better -
why ? well your 64-bit os file cache is much more efficient at using
your 24G or RAM than Pg's buffer cache logic is (at the moment anyway).

regards

Mark

Dann Corbit wrote:

>
>Where 64 bits matters (in general -- not restricted to PG database
>systems):
>
>Size of the database is huge (e.g. every toll paid in New Jersey in the
>last 5 years)
>Available memory is huge (e.g. you buy a machine with 24 gigs of ram)
>Data bus bandwidth is huge (e.g. You buy an 8-way Opteron with 40 GB/sec
>bandwidth)
>
>The 32 bit machines cannot compete in these arenas.
>
>
>
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mark Kirkwood 2004-02-14 04:18:42 Re: Quad Xeon vs. Dual Itanium
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-02-14 03:46:18 Re: Quad Xeon vs. Dual Itanium