On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 8:33 PM, <iharrathi....@orange-ftgroup.com> wrote: > on server1(64 bit) i have 2 Intel E5310 quad-core 1.6Ghz and on server2(32 > bit) i have 2 Intel Xeon dual-core 2.33Ghz. > means 8*1.6 Ghz on server1 and 4*2.33 on server2. > > 8*1.6 is better and faster than 4*2.33, no?
Sometimes I wonder if people REALLY read the replies sent to the list. If they don't read it, then why bother asking? David has mentioned that the reason your "32bit server" is faster is because it has higher clock speed (2.33 GHz). Elvin has also mentioned that the 32 bit 2.33GHz CPU might actually win out purely based on the higher clock frequency. Basically what they're saying is that for BIND, clock speed of a SINGLE core is more important that the TOTAL sum of all core speeds. So if you've read their response you wouldn't say "8*1.6 is better and faster than 4*2.33". Cause the total doesn't matter in this case. >From my experience: - clock speed of a SINGLE core matters. A lot. - going from 2 cores to 4 cores give about 50% improvement, but going from 4 to 8 cores doesn't give any signifcant improvement - x86_64 simply kick ass compared to power or sparc. Stick with x86_64 if If you're using BIND, don't bother with other arch (which are more expensive, give lower performance. At least it was true at that time). - 64 bit OS and userland gives the benefit of more addressable memory. In BIND's case, this means more memory for cache, which (depends on the type of load) can lead to higher performance (only if you configure it to use the memory for cache, of course). -- Fajar _______________________________________________ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
