On 06/16/07 10:47, Lincoln Yeoh wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been wondering, what O/S or hardware feature would be useful for
> databases?
>
> If Postgresql developers could get the CPU and O/S makers to do things
> that would make certain things easier/faster (and in the long term) what
> would they be?
>
> By long term I mean it's not something that's only useful for a few
> years. Not something "gimmicky".
>
> For example - something like virtual memory definitely made many things
> easier. Hardware support for virtualization also makes stuff like vmware
> easier and better.
What's the purpose of a multi-processing OS if you're just going to
run a bunch of single-task VMs?
> Seems CPU makers currently have more transistors than they know what to
> do with, so they're adding cores and doing a lot of boring stuff like
> SSE2, SSE3, SSE4, etc.
>
> So is there anything else useful that they (and the O/S ppl) can do that
> they aren't doing already?
Reducing memory latency always helps. That's AMD's strong point and
now Intel is doing it.
They've both got more cache. While I can't see the big use in PCs
with quad-cores, multi-core can't help but benefit database servers.
AMD, Intel & IBM are always profiling code, to find bottlenecks in
their microarchitectures.
POWER6 can run at 4GHz and is multi-core.
Anyway... databases are always(?) IO bound. I'd try to figure out
how to make a bigger hose (or more hoses) between the spindles and
the mobo.
The Alpha 8400 had multiple PCI *buses*, so as not to have a 133MBps
chokepoint. A server with multiple PCI-e buses, 10Gb Ethernet, and
lots of 4Gb HBAs attached to a big, fat SAN chock full of 15K SCSI
disks could suck up a heck of a lot of data.
> Better support for distributed locking (across cluster nodes etc)? OK
> that's old stuff, but the last I checked HP was burying VMS and Tandem.
AMD's HyperTransport could probably be used similar to Memory
Channel. However, nowadays, gigabit Ethernet is the CI of choice,
meaning that it's all done in software.
> Hardware acceleration for quickly counting the number of
> set/unset/matching bits?
x86 doesn't already do that?
--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!