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

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/

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  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