Re: AMD/64, SGA size

dm_at_belkam.com (Dmitry Melekhov) wrote in message news:<48f1f058.0406050752.71283c63_at_posting.google.com>...
> "Burt Peltier" <burttemp1REMOVETHIS_at_bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<H7fwc.23215$BH2.3266_at_bignews3.bellsouth.net>...
> > I would agree, it appears you are running a 32-bit version of Linux or
> > Oracle.
> >
> Certanly, no :-)
>
> > But, if you really are running "Linux x86-64 AMD64" (wording from Metalink
> > certification) and 64-bit Oracle, I would be curious which hardware vendor
> > you are using?
> >
>
> Athlon64, MSI mb.
>
> This is my desktop :-)
> > So now what's that advantage of Itanium2 64-bit (or AMD 64-bit) (SGAs larger
> > than they need to be :) ....
>
> I need large SGA. Period.
> (currently, only for testing ;-) )

no, you don't.
you _want_ to test large memory support.

I'd suggest that you wait for someone else to figure it out and then follow in their footsteps.

Pd

>
> > - The performance doesn't appear to be that much better ( refer to
> > www.spec.org ).
> > - Look at the INT and FP for 32-bit Xeon vs. 64-bit Itanium2.
> > - Xeon 3.2GHz appears to be 1.5 times faster in the INT specs and
> > Itanium2 1.5GHz (latest) is 1.5 times faster in the FP specs (yet Itanium2
> > is slower in the INT specs than Xeon).
> > - What's best for Oracle ... INT or FP performance?
>
> Please understand- AMD64 costs less than Xeon and runs faster.
> And it is 64-bit (well, 40 bit on Linux level).
Received on Sat Jun 05 2004 - 17:17:44 CDT