Message-ID: <444E6F41.8000102@commandprompt.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 11:49:37 -0700
From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
Organization: Command Prompt, Inc.
User-Agent: Mail/News 1.5 (X11/20060309)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bill Moran <wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>
CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs
References: <20060425141435.6c8c163c.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>
In-Reply-To: <20060425141435.6c8c163c.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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/