how important is the size of the level two cache of the cpu for the
speed of the database.
Because we have to choose between 512k up to 2 M
Thanks for support
Christian WeiÃ, wellcom international
Subject: Processor Cache
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 09:31:19 +0200
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
NNTP-Posting-Host: 18.104.22.168.nci.de 22.214.171.124
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.sqlserver.nt:2149
Article PK: 1089581
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 18:11:58 +1200
From: "Mark A. Parsons" <pegasys@_internet.co.nz>
Organization: Pegasys (2000) Limited
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U)
Subject: Re: Processor Cache
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
NNTP-Posting-Host: p350.ipa1-n8-16.iconz.net.nz 126.96.36.199
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.sqlserver.nt:2145
Article PK: 1089577
No offense ... but I don't think this is a database specific issue. In
other words ... forgetting about databases for the minute and just
focusing on the cpu itself ... what does a larger level two cache do for
the cpu? Will this allow the cpu to spend more time processing vs.
waiting for 'slower' memory accesses?
If a level two cache will improve cpu performance then, generally,
anything that uses the cpu should see an improvement. And since Sybase
dataservers use their fair share of cpu cycles ... well ... there should
definitely be some improvements.
Now, will *you* see an improvement? *shrug* It would depend on your
environment. For example, if you have a disk I/O intensive application
then a few less cpu cycles may not be too noticeable ... especially in
light of the *SLOW* speeds of a disk (when compared to cpu speeds).
How to know for sure? Test it? Get specs from the chip (set) maker?
In other words, what kind of raw cpu speed 'improvements' can you expect
to get between the 512K and 2M cache's?
Mark A. Parsons
Iron Horse, Inc. firstname.lastname@example.org
Pegasys (200), Ltd email@example.com