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