3 ms·
Isn't 8 GB per core still reasonable? Especially if you can share indices and buffer caches across cores, for example. There must still be diminishing returns f
by jakub_h 11y ago
Isn't 8 GB per core still reasonable? Especially if you can share indices and buffer caches across cores, for example. There must still be diminishing returns for caching.
- zymhan 11y ago"reasonable" is entirely context-dependent. Some workloads are CPU or network bound. Others are memory bound.
- Sanddancer 11y agoDepends on your dataset. Systems like Databases perform much, much better the less you have to touch a storage controller. One of the things that's going into Intel's 2017/2018 platform is the support for 6 channels of memory, and not all of that needs to be DRAM. There's a new standard, NVDIMM, that lets you use non-volatile memory as RAM, and take advantage of its much higher densities. So, if you have things like a database, you can map a much larger dataset into actual memory, instead of needing to just have the indexes in there.
- mnw21cam 11y agoI do a load of work with high throughput genetics sequencing. One of the programs that processes the data for a sample is single-threaded, but requires about 40GB of RAM. I currently have a server with 384GB RAM and 64 CPU threads, so 6GB/thread. RAM capacity is a definite bottleneck, since I can only run 9 at a time, instead of 64. It all depends.