5 ms·

Still limited to a measly 208gb of RAM? That was pretty good back in the day, but now my desktop workstation has 128gb. AWS offers up to 488gb on their latest

by eloff 10y ago

Still limited to a measly 208gb of RAM? That was pretty good back in the day, but now my desktop workstation has 128gb. AWS offers up to 488gb on their latest R4 instances, and 2tb on their X1 instances released a year ago.

boulos 10y ago
From the November post [1]: > You'll be able to use the new processor with Compute Engine’s standard, highmem, highcpu and custom machine types. We also plan to continue to introduce bigger and better VM instance types that offer more vCPUs and RAM for compute- and memory-intensive workloads. [1] https://cloudplatform.googleblog.com/2016/11/power-up-your-Google-Compute-Engine-VMs-with-Intels-next-generation-Custom-Cloud-Xeon-Processor.html https://cloudplatform.googleblog.com/2016/11/power-up-your-G...
crypt1d 10y ago
damn. out of curiosity, what do u use that much ram for?
- jdhawk 10y ago
  Database
- warent 10y ago
  I honestly can't think of any viable purpose for that much RAM unless there's a huge amount of waste happening
  - jsmthrowaway 10y ago
    How hard are you thinking? I can think of numerous scenarios where an entire working set being in RAM is useful and occasionally essential, and it is quite common as an optimization in several industries. Finance comes to mind (kdb+ is designed to weaponize tons of RAM), as does high-scale Web operations. This is part of why solid state NVMe devices are compelling, too, to help bridge the gap, but it sounds like not for your purposes. Even on the less complicated end, some years ago throwing a shitload of page cache at MongoDB was the only way to maintain high write loads, and eventually one reached a point where one had to keep an entire shard in cache. That bottom end threshold is lower than you think. I don't know if that's changed.
    - warent 10y ago
      I could be wrong but it really sounds like you're talking about production. If that's the case then yes, I can respect the RAM requirement and it's almost too obvious to state that it isn't purposeless. The key here is it's a personal development workstation on which he has these resources. If that's a requirement, I would argue there's something fundamentally wrong with his development processes requiring that much data locally without even a server.
- tiff_seattle 10y ago
  We use multiple machines with 6 TB each at my job, all for use with databases.
jdhawk 10y ago
No - I believe these will be up to 64core & 416GB
- boulos 10y ago
  Nope. Bigger :).
  - jdhawk 10y ago
    Interesting, are you guys decoupling the 1.6GB/RAM per core requirement? I'd love to spin up a 32x512GB for a DB Server.
iamgopal 10y ago
I use 128 gb too but here we call it SSD

by eloff 10y ago

boulos 10y ago

From the November post [1]: > You'll be able to use the new processor with Compute Engine’s standard, highmem, highcpu and custom machine types. We also plan to continue to introduce bigger and better VM instance types that offer more vCPUs and RAM for compute- and memory-intensive workloads. [1] https://cloudplatform.googleblog.com/2016/11/power-up-your-Google-Compute-Engine-VMs-with-Intels-next-generation-Custom-Cloud-Xeon-Processor.html https://cloudplatform.googleblog.com/2016/11/power-up-your-G...

crypt1d 10y ago

damn. out of curiosity, what do u use that much ram for?

jdhawk 10y ago
Database
warent 10y ago
I honestly can't think of any viable purpose for that much RAM unless there's a huge amount of waste happening
- jsmthrowaway 10y ago
  How hard are you thinking? I can think of numerous scenarios where an entire working set being in RAM is useful and occasionally essential, and it is quite common as an optimization in several industries. Finance comes to mind (kdb+ is designed to weaponize tons of RAM), as does high-scale Web operations. This is part of why solid state NVMe devices are compelling, too, to help bridge the gap, but it sounds like not for your purposes. Even on the less complicated end, some years ago throwing a shitload of page cache at MongoDB was the only way to maintain high write loads, and eventually one reached a point where one had to keep an entire shard in cache. That bottom end threshold is lower than you think. I don't know if that's changed.
  - warent 10y ago
    I could be wrong but it really sounds like you're talking about production. If that's the case then yes, I can respect the RAM requirement and it's almost too obvious to state that it isn't purposeless. The key here is it's a personal development workstation on which he has these resources. If that's a requirement, I would argue there's something fundamentally wrong with his development processes requiring that much data locally without even a server.
tiff_seattle 10y ago
We use multiple machines with 6 TB each at my job, all for use with databases.

jdhawk 10y ago

No - I believe these will be up to 64core & 416GB

boulos 10y ago
Nope. Bigger :).
- jdhawk 10y ago
  Interesting, are you guys decoupling the 1.6GB/RAM per core requirement? I'd love to spin up a 32x512GB for a DB Server.

iamgopal 10y ago

I use 128 gb too but here we call it SSD