Re: Quad Xeon vs. Dual Itanium
От | Dann Corbit |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Quad Xeon vs. Dual Itanium |
Дата | |
Msg-id | D90A5A6C612A39408103E6ECDD77B829408CFF@voyager.corporate.connx.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Quad Xeon vs. Dual Itanium (John Gibson <gib@edgate.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Quad Xeon vs. Dual Itanium
Re: Quad Xeon vs. Dual Itanium |
Список | pgsql-general |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Kirkwood [mailto:markir@paradise.net.nz] > Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 5:30 PM > To: Andrew Sullivan > Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Quad Xeon vs. Dual Itanium > > > 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?). Where 64 bits matters (in general -- not restricted to PG database systems): Size of the database is huge (e.g. every toll paid in New Jersey in the last 5 years) Available memory is huge (e.g. you buy a machine with 24 gigs of ram) Data bus bandwidth is huge (e.g. You buy an 8-way Opteron with 40 GB/sec bandwidth) The 32 bit machines cannot compete in these arenas.
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: