Tom Lane wrote:
Mark Kirkwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
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 anyon
Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing when [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Sullivan) wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 12:19:39PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> 64-bits isn't faster than 32, and can be slower because of the longer
>> pointer length, decreasing cache performance. The major advantage to
>>
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Dann Corbit") would write:
> Available memory is huge (e.g. you buy a machine with 24 gigs of ram)
Actually, as soon as 2GB of memory starts to feel "restrictive," 64
bit addressing starts being at least nominally worthwhile.
The only wa
Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing when [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Dann Corbit") wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 9:05 PM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: [GENER
At 09:30 PM 2/13/2004 -0800, Dann Corbit wrote:
> Well, unless the Postgres cache is more efficient than the OS's, no?.
> You could then use the nocache filesystem option, and just
> let Postgres handle the whole thing. Of course, that's a
> pretty big unless, and not one that I'm volunteering to
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 9:05 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Quad Xeon vs. Dual Itanium
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 10:46:18PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>
&g
On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 10:46:18PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Quite honestly, I suspect we may be wasting our time hacking the
> Postgres buffer replacement algorithm at all. There are a bunch of
> reasons why the PG shared buffer arena should never be more than a
> small fraction of physical RAM,
On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 06:11:08PM -0800, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
> 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/se
Should have mentioned : assuming you are on a platform where you *have*
a choice about compilation word-length!
(Solaris and ?)
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
Now suppose you want to run a Pg database for such a situation may
as well compile 32-bit.
---(end of broadcas
No disagreement from me about the 64-bit *hardware* and *os*...
Now suppose you want to run a Pg database for such a situation may
as well compile 32-bit.
Why ? well you *dont* want to set shared_buffers to 20G... in fact 200M
works better -
why ? well your 64-bit os file cache is much more
Mark Kirkwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 tri
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Kirkwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 5:30 PM
> To: Andrew Sullivan
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Quad Xeon vs. Dual Itanium
>
>
> Wouldn't you only care about 64-bi
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
On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 12:19:39PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 64-bits isn't faster than 32, and can be slower because of the longer
> pointer length, decreasing cache performance. The major advantage to
> 64-bits is accessing more the 4gb of RAM.
I note, however, that all the Sun experts say y
Clinging to sanity, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Gibson) mumbled into her beard:
> I need to upgrade my dual Xeon PostgreSQL engine.
>
> Assuming similar memory and disk sub-systems, I am considering a
> Quad Xeon system vs. a Dual Itanium for PostgreSQL. I believe that
> the PostgreSQL code is written
> "JG" == John Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JG> Hi, all.
JG> I need to upgrade my dual Xeon PostgreSQL engine.
JG> Assuming similar memory and disk sub-systems, I am considering a Quad
JG> Xeon system vs. a Dual Itanium for PostgreSQL. I believe that the
Save the money from the dual i
On Feb 10, 2004, at 2:18 AM, Lincoln Yeoh wrote:
At 11:44 AM 2/9/2004 -0500, Doug McNaught wrote:
John Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Assuming similar memory and disk sub-systems, I am considering a
Quad
> Xeon system vs. a Dual Itanium for PostgreSQL. I believe that the
> PostgreSQL cod
James Moe wrote:
> John Gibson wrote:
> >
> > Assuming similar memory and disk sub-systems, I am considering a Quad
> > Xeon system vs. a Dual Itanium for PostgreSQL. I believe that the
> > PostgreSQL code is written for 32 bit and not optimized for the 64 bit
> > Itanium cpu. That makes me t
Doug McNaught wrote:
John Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Assuming similar memory and disk sub-systems, I am considering a Quad
Xeon system vs. a Dual Itanium for PostgreSQL. I believe that the
PostgreSQL code is written for 32 bit and not optimized for the 64 bit
Itanium cpu. That makes
On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, John Gibson wrote:
> Hi, all.
>
> I need to upgrade my dual Xeon PostgreSQL engine.
>
> Assuming similar memory and disk sub-systems, I am considering a Quad
> Xeon system vs. a Dual Itanium for PostgreSQL. I believe that the
> PostgreSQL code is written for 32 bit and not
At 11:44 AM 2/9/2004 -0500, Doug McNaught wrote:
John Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Assuming similar memory and disk sub-systems, I am considering a Quad
> Xeon system vs. a Dual Itanium for PostgreSQL. I believe that the
> PostgreSQL code is written for 32 bit and not optimized for the 6
John Gibson wrote:
Hi, all.
I need to upgrade my dual Xeon PostgreSQL engine.
Assuming similar memory and disk sub-systems, I am considering a Quad
Xeon system vs. a Dual Itanium for PostgreSQL. I believe that the
PostgreSQL code is written for 32 bit and not optimized for the 64 bit
Itanium
John Gibson wrote:
Assuming similar memory and disk sub-systems, I am considering a Quad
Xeon system vs. a Dual Itanium for PostgreSQL. I believe that the
PostgreSQL code is written for 32 bit and not optimized for the 64 bit
Itanium cpu. That makes me think that the Xeon system would be a bet
23 matches
Mail list logo
