Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 09:07:39 -0400 From: Bill Moran <wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Dual-core CPU vs. very large cache Message-ID: <20060425090739.8470143f.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[First off, the list archives for this list don't seem to be searchable. I get the following error: Unable to read document excerpts '/usr/local/mailman/archives/private/freebsd-performance/htdig/db.excerpts' Did you run htdig?] So ... on to the question. We have some database servers that we're looking to replace with beefier hardware, mainly because we're expecting our customer base to grow a lot in the near future. The current hw is Dell 2850 servers. These are dual proc (each proc is hyperthreaded) with Dell PERC controllers driving 4 SCSI-320 disks in a RAID-10. We're doing our best to simulate high-load in the lab, and the database consistently bottlenecks on CPU usage. I'm assuming that the combination of plenty of RAM and high-speed disks has led to the CPU being the slowest part of the system. We're considering two alternatives for the newer hardware: 1) Intel HT CPUs with 8M cache 2) Intel dual-core procs Our current Dells have 2M cache, and I'm trying to determine whether the 8M cache will make a significant difference or not. Can someone recommend a testing procedure for determining whether adding cache is worthwhile or not? I can simulate a test load at any time, but I don't know how to tell whether the cache is the bottleneck of the CPU or not. -- Bill Moran Collaborative Fusion Inc.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060425090739.8470143f.wmoran>