Performance of CPU/Core.

Redhat Linux 4 running on Sun 4600 Servers, IDS 11.50.FC5 (6) when GA. We are currently using 8-Dual Core, 2.5 GHz AMD Opteron 8218. We are planning to purchase two new servers, but the only option is 4- Quad Core, 2.9Ghz AMD Opteron 8389 Just wondering if anyone has experience with the Quad core and can we expect better performance with the same number of cores (16) with faster chips? Seems like I heard a couple of years back that the Quard core chips had some issues compared to the dual core. Thanks Roy

Roy, A couple of years back, the quad cores were nothing more than 2 dual core chips on the same silicon. Your newer machines will have different memory channels and other changes in the hardware which is more efficient. > From: roy.mercer@gmail.com > Subject: Performance of CPU/Core. > Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:07:52 -0800 > To: informix-list@iiug.org > > > Redhat Linux 4 running on Sun 4600 Servers, IDS 11.50.FC5 (6) when GA. > > We are currently using 8-Dual Core, 2.5 GHz AMD Opteron 8218. > We are planning to purchase two new servers, but the only option is 4- > Quad Core, 2.9Ghz AMD Opteron 8389 > > > Just wondering if anyone has experience with the Quad core and can we > expect better performance with the same number of cores (16) with > faster chips? Seems like I heard a couple of years back that the > Quard core chips had some issues compared to the dual core. > > Thanks > Roy > > > _______________________________________________ > Informix-list mailing list > Informix-list@iiug.org > http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/ http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/

Roy Mercer schrieb: > Redhat Linux 4 running on Sun 4600 Servers, IDS 11.50.FC5 (6) when GA. > > We are currently using 8-Dual Core, 2.5 GHz AMD Opteron 8218. > We are planning to purchase two new servers, but the only option is 4- > Quad Core, 2.9Ghz AMD Opteron 8389 > > > Just wondering if anyone has experience with the Quad core and can we > expect better performance with the same number of cores (16) with > faster chips? Seems like I heard a couple of years back that the > Quard core chips had some issues compared to the dual core. > > Thanks > Roy > > Hello Roy, can only tell you, that we switched from AMD 2x dual-core to AMD 2x 6-core. The Gigahertz are almost the same (0.1 Ghz more now) with good results when running 10 CPUvps on this machine type. The customer was able to reduce the number of machines as it was expected from 12 to 6 having excess performance for their future scope of 3 years. The I/O performance bottleneck did not go away, but is less dominat because they upped memory from 4GB / core to 8GB / core. Next step will be to migrate read bound tables to SSDs. dic_k -- Richard Kofler SOLID STATE EDV Dienstleistungen GmbH Vienna/Austria/Europe

"Richard Kofler" <richard.kofler@chello.at> wrote in message news:d4d3e$4b03b917$506d3c15$4781@news.chello.at... > Next step will be to migrate read bound tables to SSDs. You must have deep pockets!

Captain Pedantic schrieb: > "Richard Kofler" <richard.kofler@chello.at> wrote in message > news:d4d3e$4b03b917$506d3c15$4781@news.chello.at... >> Next step will be to migrate read bound tables to SSDs. > > You must have deep pockets! Dear Captain, this is no longer true at all. And then, it is not *my* deep pockets, but the pockets of a customer of mine, as I run many things on SSDs for well over 1.5 years now. Maybe this will not happen so on their IDS sites, but on their ORA sites they went down from 24 licences to 8 and having much better performance. In fact they are spending alot less now than before, if one looks at TCO. Of course one needs to know what samllish tables are heavily readbound, and must only put those onto a more expensive storage type - seen almost as a cache. And then upping the cache-memory in a 'huge' I/O subsystem, or upping main memory from one of those big iron shops is like 12 times more expensive than SLC flash disks. Just look for prices and see for yourself. A good starting point is www.storagesearch.com. dic_k -- Richard Kofler SOLID STATE EDV Dienstleistungen GmbH Vienna/Austria/Europe