Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
To: Ron Peacetree <rjpeace(at)earthlink(dot)net>
Cc: mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc, Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com>,Bill Moran <wmoran(at)collaborativefusion(dot)com>,pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs
Date: 2006-04-26 22:16:31
Message-ID: 20060426221631.GA97354@pervasive.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 11:07:17PM -0400, Ron Peacetree wrote:
> A minor point to be noted in addition here is that most DB servers under load are limited by their physical IO subsystem, their HDs, and not the speed of their RAM.

I think if that were the only consideration we wouldn't be seeing such a
dramatic difference between AMD and Intel though. Even in a disk-bound
server, caching is going to have a tremendous impact, and that's
essentially entirely bound by memory bandwith and latency.
-- 
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant      jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software      http://pervasive.com    work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf       cell: 512-569-9461

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-04-26 22:16:46
Subject: Re: Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs
Previous:From: Jim C. NasbyDate: 2006-04-26 22:14:47
Subject: Re: Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group