Re: Tuning for mid-size server

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>
Cc: Anjan Dave <adave(at)vantage(dot)com>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Tuning for mid-size server
Date: 2003-10-21 17:12:15
Message-ID: 200310211012.15845.josh@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Scott,

> Also, if it's a read only environment, RAID5 with n drives equals the
> performance of RAID0 with n-1 drives.

True.

> Josh, you gotta get out more. IA32 has supported >4 gig ram for a long
> time now, and so has the linux kernel. It uses a paging method to do it.
> Individual processes are still limited to ~3 gig on Linux on 32 bit
> hardware though, so the extra mem will almost certainly spend it's time as
> kernel cache.

Not that you'd want a sigle process to grow that large anyway.

So what is the ceiling on 32-bit processors for RAM? Most of the 64-bit
vendors are pushing Athalon64 and G5 as "breaking the 4GB barrier", and even
I can do the math on 2^32. All these 64-bit vendors, then, are talking
about the limit on ram *per application* and not per machine?

This has all been academic to me to date, as the only very-high-ram systems
I've worked with were Sparc or micros.

--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2003-10-21 17:13:53 Re: Low Insert/Update Performance
Previous Message Anjan Dave 2003-10-21 17:02:08 Re: Tuning for mid-size server