| From: | Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing(at)tweakers(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jonathan Ballet <jon(at)multani(dot)info>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Performances with new Intel Core* processors |
| Date: | 2006-07-31 20:27:45 |
| Message-ID: | 1154377665.6095.16.camel@state.g2switchworks.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 11:30, Arjen van der Meijden wrote:
> On 31-7-2006 17:52, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> For a database system, however, processors hardly ever are the main
> bottleneck, are they? So you should probably go for a set of "fast
> processors" from your favorite supplier and focus mainly on lots of
> memory and fast disks. Whether that employs Opterons or Xeon Woodcrest
> (no other Xeons are up to that competition, imho) doesn't really matter.
Just making a quick comment here. While the CPU core itself nowadays
certainly is not the most common bottleneck for a fast db server, the
ability of the CPU/Memory combo to act as a datapump IS often a limit.
In that case, you want to go with whichever setup gives you the fastest
access to memory.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vivek Khera | 2006-07-31 21:04:37 | Re: Performances with new Intel Core* processors |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-07-31 19:57:03 | Re: Performances with new Intel Core* processors |