Re: L2 cache vs. faster processor

--- Paul Drake <discgolfdba@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> --- Terry Sutton <terrysutton@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > A client is ordering hardware for an Oracle on
> Linux
> > system, and has to choose between 2.8 GHz Xeon
> > processors with 1MB L2 cache and 3.06 GHz Xeon
> > processors (no L2 cache).  Does anyone have any
> > recommendations on the value of L2 cache vs. a
> > faster processor?
> > --Terry
> 
> Intel has some docs related to this up on their
> website.

marketing pop-ups here:

http://intel.com/business/bss/products/server/xeon/index.htm?iid=ipp_srvr_proc_xeon+xeon_srvr&;

they state that the 4 MB 3.2 GHz Xeon MPs are 3 times
as fast as the 700 MHz 1 MB cache model.

I have one more day to benchmark on a dual Opteron
system before the eval system goes back. HP offers no
64 bit support for their integrated RAID controllers.
"Oh, if you want to run 64 bit, buy an Itanium
system".
Still run by them marketing types.

makes me wanna buy a Sun Opteron-based server.

post your code, and I'll run it tomorrow.

Pd
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to:  oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Other related posts: