On Mon, 9 May 2011, David Boreham wrote:
> On 5/9/2011 6:32 PM, Craig James wrote:
>> Maybe this is a dumb question, but why do you care? If you have 1TB RAM
>> and just a little more actual disk space, it seems like your database will
>> always be cached in memory anyway. If you "eliminate the cach effect,"
>> won't the benchmark actually give you the wrong real-life results?
>
> The time it takes to populate the cache from a cold start might be important.
you may also have other processes that will be contending with the disk
buffers for memory (for that matter, postgres may use a significant amount
of that memory as it's producing it's results)
David Lang
> Also, if it were me, I'd be wanting to check for weird performance behavior
> at this memory scale.
> I've seen cases in the past where the VM subsystem went bananas because the
> designers
> and testers of its algorithms never considered the physical memory size we
> deployed.
>
> How many times was the kernel tested with this much memory, for example ?
> (never??)
>
>
>
>