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.
>
>
>
>
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 |