3 ms·

unlike a webserver setup maybe 20 years ago now it's trivially easy to hold even a 30GB database entirely in RAM and never touch disk, for a vast performance in

unlike a webserver setup maybe 20 years ago now it's trivially easy to hold even a 30GB database entirely in RAM and never touch disk, for a vast performance increase. I think I saw a used x86-64 server with 512GB of RAM for sale for $1700 recently.

metadat 4y ago
> I think I saw a used x86-64 server with 512GB of RAM for sale for $1700 recently. Where? Sounds like a terrific bargain, my old supermicro only has 384GB.
- walrus01 4y ago
  ebay, was a dell r630 with two somewhat older 14-core xeons, 28 cores
- tiernano 4y ago
  You could pick up an R620 with 768GB Ram and 2 8 core Xeons for around 1400GBP (https://www.bargainhardware.co.uk/dell-poweredge-r620-10-sff-bays-configure-to-order https://www.bargainhardware.co.uk/dell-poweredge-r620-10-sff...) without disks... DDR4 is a bit more expensive... but DDR3 is still fast for a lot of jobs...
  - walrus01 4y ago
    R620 is a problem for anything that needs high bandwidth networking, however, because the pci-e slots are only 2.0. ruling out the use of many 10GbE interfaces or things like two port 100GbE
midislack 4y ago
Since the 1970's Unix has held frequently used pages in cache. Still does!
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- walrus01 4y ago
  not the same thing as tuning the db settings to specifically cache the whole thing in RAM and maybe even making its disk storage live on a RAM drive that's created at boot.
  - midislack 4y ago
    Time to revive the sticky bit!
    - astrange 4y ago
      That's mlock() and it does already exist. People really like to reinvent things their OS already has because they're one step too far above the kernel to use them - like building a web service to send files between two internal servers when you could use NFS.
- hedora 4y ago
  If only this were true for S3 and friends. (It is true for clients of scale out NFS servers, for what it's worth.)
6c696e7578 4y ago
If you don't care much about the data, no harm putting it in /dev/shm :)

metadat 4y ago

> I think I saw a used x86-64 server with 512GB of RAM for sale for $1700 recently. Where? Sounds like a terrific bargain, my old supermicro only has 384GB.

walrus01 4y ago
ebay, was a dell r630 with two somewhat older 14-core xeons, 28 cores
tiernano 4y ago
You could pick up an R620 with 768GB Ram and 2 8 core Xeons for around 1400GBP (https://www.bargainhardware.co.uk/dell-poweredge-r620-10-sff-bays-configure-to-order https://www.bargainhardware.co.uk/dell-poweredge-r620-10-sff...) without disks... DDR4 is a bit more expensive... but DDR3 is still fast for a lot of jobs...
- walrus01 4y ago
  R620 is a problem for anything that needs high bandwidth networking, however, because the pci-e slots are only 2.0. ruling out the use of many 10GbE interfaces or things like two port 100GbE

midislack 4y ago

Since the 1970's Unix has held frequently used pages in cache. Still does!

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
walrus01 4y ago
not the same thing as tuning the db settings to specifically cache the whole thing in RAM and maybe even making its disk storage live on a RAM drive that's created at boot.
- midislack 4y ago
  Time to revive the sticky bit!
  - astrange 4y ago
    That's mlock() and it does already exist. People really like to reinvent things their OS already has because they're one step too far above the kernel to use them - like building a web service to send files between two internal servers when you could use NFS.
hedora 4y ago
If only this were true for S3 and friends. (It is true for clients of scale out NFS servers, for what it's worth.)

6c696e7578 4y ago

If you don't care much about the data, no harm putting it in /dev/shm :)