It was David Creasy (Matrix Science) that told me that I should add memory to speed up searches. This was maybe six or seven years ago, and I think I had 512Mb at the time.
I've gone ahead with core 2 Duo Processor E8600 (3.33GHz, 6M, 1333MHz FSB), with 4Mb DDR DIMMS, and XP Pro based on Natalie's comment. Should be fine. Saved a bundle too. On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Matthew Chambers < matthew.chamb...@vanderbilt.edu> wrote: > > I can only speak for the database search step, but I've never seen any > of the major search engines use more than a gig of RAM on a high-end > data set (~30k spectra) with a large database (UniRef-100 FTW!). As long > as there is free physical RAM at all times during a search, adding more > RAM is not going to speed things up noticeably. If you start using a box > for multiple purposes (i.e. hosting multiple servers, VMs, etc.) that's > when you need to bump up the RAM and usually go 64-bit on the OS > (although not necessarily on the applications). > > -Matt > > > AndrewK wrote: > > Thanks Matt. It was my assumption that 32bit apps generally have no > > problem running on Vista. I guess the issue is they cannot take > > advantage of the additional processing bandwidth (?). > > > > Memory limitations on 32 bit platforms appears to be 4Gb per > > processor. Is this a wrong assumption? The duo core chips can take no > > more than 8Gb DDR DIMMS, whereas Xeons can go way higher, but If it is > > a 32bit application, does the Xeon access all of the memory available > > to the quad processors while running that 32bit app? In other words, > > would you have to have more than 16 Gb of memory on a Xeon to get > > similar performance to a duo core with 8Mb? Those larger memory > > architectures get pricey fast (though I guess the xeons have bigger L2 > > cache as well). > > > > Memory seems to be an important consideration in getting faster search > > times, but can 32bit applications actually utilize more than 4Gb of > > that 8Gb of memory? If not, then it seems that You have to go Xeon > > with more than 16Mb of memory to get faster searches (and similar Xeon > > clock speeds are more pricey than the same speeds on the duo core > > chips). > > > > I just don't want to make a stupid mistake. > > > > On Sep 3, 11:37 am, Matthew Chambers <matthew.chamb...@vanderbilt.edu> > > wrote: > > > >> Speaking for ProteoWizard, I run Vista 64-bit at home and the 32-bit > >> binaries work fine. I haven't dared to compile the 64-bit binaries > >> because they wouldn't work with the vendor DLLs anyway. I suspect TPP's > >> 32-bit binaries will work fine as well. > >> > >> -Matt > >> > >> AndrewK wrote: > >> > >>> I don't see hardware or OS limitations for the Windows version(s) of > >>> SPCtools. I'll be using Extract_MSN (as well as ReAdW), and am > >>> ordering a computer for this platform. > >>> > >>> Is Vista 64bit OK? > >>> > >>> Andrew > >>> UMKC-Proteomics > >>> Kansas City > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "spctools-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to spctools-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to spctools-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/spctools-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
