DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327;
 d=earthlink.net;
	b=rhzp97PXGOynqTJMzRv/uw8XbeLkJfR5I+jG7bfgt7jQkU0LS/w9rbctJCWiSmvS;
	h=Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:To:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Message-ID: 
 <9515919.1146064240401.JavaMail.root@elwamui-darkeyed.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 11:10:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ron  Peacetree <rjpeace@earthlink.net>
Reply-To: Ron  Peacetree <rjpeace@earthlink.net>
To: mark@mark.mielke.cc, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Mea Culpa.  There is a mistake in my example for SDR vs DDR vs DDR2.
This is what I get for posting before my morning coffee.

The base latency for all of the memory types is that of the base clock rate; 200MHz= 5ns in my given examples.

I double factored, making DDR and DDR2 worse than they actually are.

Again, my apologies.
Ron

-----Original Message-----
>From: Ron Peacetree <rjpeace@earthlink.net>
>Sent: Apr 26, 2006 8:40 AM
>To: mark@mark.mielke.cc, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
>Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs
>
>I'm posting this to the entire performance list in the hopes that it will be generally useful.
>=r
<snip>
>
>Note also what happens when transferring the first datum after a lull period.
>For purposes of example, let's pretend that we are talking about a base clock rate of 200MHz= 5ns.
>
>The SDR still transfers data every 5ns no matter what.
>The DDR transfers the 1st datum in 10ns and then assuming there are at least 2 sequential datums to be >transferred will transfer the 2nd and subsequent sequential pieces of data every 2.5ns.
>The DDR2 transfers the 1st datum in 20ns and then assuming there are at least 4 sequential datums to be >transferred will transfer the 2nd and subsequent sequential pieces of data every 1.25ns.
>
=5= ns to first transfer in all 3 casess.  Bad Ron.   No Biscuit!

>
>Thus we can see that randomly accessing RAM degrades performance significantly for DDR and DDR2.   We can >also see that the conditions for optimal RAM performance become more restrictive as we go from SDR to DDR to >DDR2.
>The reason DDR2 with a low base clock rate excelled at tasks like streaming multimedia and stank at things like >small transaction OLTP DB applications is now apparent.
>
>Factors like CPU prefetching and victim buffers can muddy this picture a bit.
>Also, if the CPU's off die IO is slower than the RAM it is talking to, how fast that RAM is becomes unimportant.
>
These statements, and everything else I posted, are accurate.