[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. _______________________________________________ freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"