jwcolby
jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com
Mon Sep 12 21:06:03 CDT 2011
>However CPUZ is still saying that my memory is dual channel instead of quad channel. The concensus is that it has to do with the fact that it a multi-chip module. Essentially each chip looks like a dual channel controller. Each chip controls 1/2 of the dimm sockets. Each chip gets at the memory for the other chip through an interconnect. Thus there really are 4 channels but... John W. Colby www.ColbyConsulting.com On 9/12/2011 5:19 PM, Francisco Tapia wrote: > very cool indeed! > > -Francisco > <http://bit.ly/sqlthis> > > On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 5:34 AM, jwcolby<jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com>wrote: > >> I dropped in 4 more dimms and my GeekBench score is now 15K. However CPUZ >> is still saying that my memory is dual channel instead of quad channel. I >> have the correct sockets populated per the motherboard manual, 4 dimm >> sockets per cpu sockets. I sure would like to figure that one out. >> >> In any event I now have 3 processors and 8 gigs assigned to Windows 2008 >> and 13 processors and 56 gigs assigned to SQL Server. >> >> As I mentioned the other day I moved to page compression for all of my >> major databases and while I do not know how it all works exactly but I now >> have enough memory to have the two databases that I normally pull data from >> for orders fit entirely into memory. One database is 35 gigs and the other >> is 15 gigs. Supposedly the data is compressed and stored on disk. Then it >> is loaded off od disk and stored in memory compressed. At the instant that >> it is used, the data is uncompressed and any resulting data recompressed (if >> storing) back into memory and from there back to disk. From my readings >> this requires more cpu power but less memory and less disk I/O. >> >> In my case I link these two databases by a KP/FK and pull sets of data >> which is written back out to a different (order) order database. The >> business is very very different with cheap powerful hardware. >> >> Thank you AMD. >> >> >> John W. Colby >> www.ColbyConsulting.com >> >> On 9/5/2011 1:30 PM, jwcolby wrote: >>> BTW I found something called GeekBench which I ran on my machine. It is >> the only thing I have found >>> that is a reasonable cost ($13) to give me numbers to compare to others. >> My Geekbench number is >>> ~13,500, and it pointed out to me that I am currently running the server >> with 1/2 of the memory >>> "bandwidth" I could be getting (the biggest reason I am adding more). >> ______________________________**_________________ >> dba-SQLServer mailing list >> dba-SQLServer@**databaseadvisors.com<dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com> >> http://databaseadvisors.com/**mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver<http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver> >> http://www.databaseadvisors.**com<http://www.databaseadvisors.com> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > dba-SQLServer mailing list > dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver > http://www.databaseadvisors.com > >