From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 26 01:56:52 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F60616A404 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 01:56:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mv@thebeastie.org) Received: from p4.roq.com (ns1.ecoms.com [207.44.130.137]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ECE843D45 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 01:56:49 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mv@thebeastie.org) Received: from p4.roq.com (localhost.roq.com [127.0.0.1]) by p4.roq.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B11BA4D1DC; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 01:58:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [192.168.46.102] (ppp166-27.static.internode.on.net [150.101.166.27]) by p4.roq.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A79054D1D5; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 01:58:03 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <444ED35E.5050703@thebeastie.org> Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 11:56:46 +1000 From: Michael Vince User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20060404 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steven Hartland References: <20060425090739.8470143f.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> <005301c668ab$39c4c150$8b00a8c0@multiplay.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <005301c668ab$39c4c150$8b00a8c0@multiplay.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Bill Moran Subject: Re: Dual-core CPU vs. very large cache X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 01:56:52 -0000 Yes I was going to point out a article from Anandtech as well. Its an older one but someone on Anandtech is a SQL performance article benchmarking different server CPUs on Database performance. It concluded that large CPU cache is very important for Databases. Basically said having a large CPU cache it helped performance more for databases then most things they ever benchmark such as benchmark differences shown in Office apps and multimedia tests. The AMD Opterons are real performance leaders ATM right now no doubt. I also understand why you must get Dell, some of the other hardware suppliers are just to hard to deal with, I tried to get a Opteron server out of HP and after about 1 month of getting excuses about CPU shortages etc I went back to Dell. Off topic here is a kind of cool article I think a lot of people can identify with, http://joyeur.com/2006/03/20/the-sun-doesnt-shine-on-me Mike Steven Hartland wrote: > Forget Intel and go for AMD who beat them hands down for DB work: > http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2745 > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Moran" > > >> 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. >