Re: Quad Xeon vs. Dual Itanium

From: Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Quad Xeon vs. Dual Itanium
Date: 2004-02-14 01:29:49
Message-ID: 402D7A0D.8030207@paradise.net.nz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Wouldn't you only care about 64-bit Postgres if you wanted to make
shared_buffers bigger than 4G?

Various other posters have commented about the sweet-spot for
shared_buffers being ~ 100-200M (or thereabouts).

So it seems to me that there is nothing to be gained using a 64-bit
binary with the current or previous Pg releases. However, with the new
cache replacement system being used in 7.5devel, the situation *may* be
different (wonder if anyone has tried this out yet?).

regards

Mark

Andrew Sullivan wrote:

>On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 12:46:58PM -0500, Christopher Browne wrote:
>
>
>>Lots of people have been running it on 64 bit systems for _years_ now.
>>The Digital Alpha architecture, for instance, was introduced in the
>>1992, and Sun UltraSPARC in 1995. PostgreSQL has been running well on
>>these sorts of systems for a lot of years now.
>>
>>
>
>But actually, there are problems with using postgres as a 64 bit
>application on Solaris. It works, and it's reliable, but I've never
>seen any evidence that it helps anything (and I've looked plenty).
>
>A
>
>
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dann Corbit 2004-02-14 02:11:08 Re: Quad Xeon vs. Dual Itanium
Previous Message Ron St-Pierre 2004-02-14 00:47:40 Re: How to determine current database?