From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bill Moran <wmoran(at)collaborativefusion(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs |
Date: | 2006-04-25 18:49:37 |
Message-ID: | 444E6F41.8000102@commandprompt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Bill Moran wrote:
> I've been given the task of making some hardware recommendations for
> the next round of server purchases. The machines to be purchased
> will be running FreeBSD & PostgreSQL.
>
> Where I'm stuck is in deciding whether we want to go with dual-core
> pentiums with 2M cache, or with HT pentiums with 8M cache.
Dual Core Opterons :)
Joshua D. Drake
>
> Both of these are expensive bits of hardware, and I'm trying to
> gather as much evidence as possible before making a recommendation.
> The FreeBSD community seems pretty divided over which is likely to
> be better, and I have been unable to discover a method for estimating
> how much of the 2M cache on our existing systems is being used.
>
> Does anyone in the PostgreSQL community have any experience with
> large caches or dual-core pentiums that could make any recommendations?
> Our current Dell 2850 systems are CPU bound - i.e. they have enough
> RAM, and fast enough disks that the CPUs seem to be the limiting
> factor. As a result, this decision on what kind of CPUs to get in
> the next round of servers is pretty important.
>
> Any advice is much appreciated.
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Sriram Dandapani | 2006-04-25 18:52:19 | Re: planner not using index for like operator |
Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2006-04-25 18:42:31 | Re: Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs |