Re: Adding more memory = hugh cpu load [solved]

From: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing(at)tweakers(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Adding more memory = hugh cpu load [solved]
Date: 2011-10-11 20:46:32
Message-ID: CAGTBQpb4-5V+r+feNRHc-SQYNetujC0HgsnHZ3v-WnNHZirFTA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Arjen van der Meijden
<acmmailing(at)tweakers(dot)net> wrote:
> That really depends on the chipset/server. The current intel E56xx-chips
> (and previous E55xx) basically just expect groups of 3 modules per
> processor, but it doesn't really matter whether that's 3x2+3x4 or 6x4 in
> terms of performance (unless the linuxkernel does some weirdness of course).
> It at least won't disable triple-channel, just because you added different
> size modules. Only when you get to too many 'ranks', you'll see performance
> degradation. But that's in terms of clock speed, not in disabling triple
> channel.
>

There are too many caveats to doing that, including how they're
installed (in which slots), the timings, brand, internal structure,
and whatnot, with all those details not always published, only sitting
in the module's SPD.

In essence, mixing is more probable to mess your multichannel
configuration than not.

That's why matched kits are sold.

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Radhya sahal 2011-10-11 21:29:23 Re: postgresql query runtime
Previous Message Arjen van der Meijden 2011-10-11 20:33:44 Re: Adding more memory = hugh cpu load [solved]