Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-cassandra-user-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-cassandra-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 290C4D4A8 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2012 11:35:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 16867 invoked by uid 500); 12 Oct 2012 11:35:16 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cassandra-user-archive@cassandra.apache.org Received: (qmail 16860 invoked by uid 500); 12 Oct 2012 11:35:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@cassandra.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@cassandra.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@cassandra.apache.org Received: (qmail 16848 invoked by uid 99); 12 Oct 2012 11:35:16 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 12 Oct 2012 11:35:16 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of serge.fonville@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.44 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.215.44] (HELO mail-la0-f44.google.com) (209.85.215.44) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 12 Oct 2012 11:35:10 +0000 Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id b11so2165593lam.31 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2012 04:34:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=cTsHtfW8zQ4KibNYTDmrPYFH7gB4lsfPZH7lYHD/Xuo=; b=oQj/JQ9PRg/2/Jlp52X2qSunePpxtqK6o6pTiiUuA6geYBMBiXSie//NwjvRLmmozT bGHVD48JwAHOmzqWrqMoJ/BEYNNkcExdy78AbFhjpAvRThoimBjob2uoZa01mLrwZtUL ipebc1x1bXkyBVeVxcmoyjU6TX8Hu/Rsc29CICC4R0oeuEsbOnkBRxY9o3F89efu155G hpHQ5CrvJNq1hy7NfeZ2dtrDMjlQN6NZ0rxTBijzhJ8D4iURcSWvEL4AdPYXmTDsMw0f YnatWq6CMaYR2Rfuly4T/AmznrKwvhHjWOYgAe6zga94jWgd3GyHzSrSk+QXmmp0+SUg W6Uw== Received: by 10.112.39.230 with SMTP id s6mr1527639lbk.90.1350041689685; Fri, 12 Oct 2012 04:34:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.114.62.229 with HTTP; Fri, 12 Oct 2012 04:34:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1350040295.19327.3.camel@tim-desktop> From: Serge Fonville Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 13:34:29 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: what is more important (RAM vs Cores) To: user@cassandra.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e0cb4efe301c587f2804cbdb13c6 --e0cb4efe301c587f2804cbdb13c6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 It seems you RAM/core ratio is different between your options. So if those two are your only options I'd suggest the 16GB option. Still, the other things * Concurrency * Fit in ram * IO Are very relevant. HTH Kind regards/met vriendelijke groet, Serge Fonville http://www.sergefonville.nl Convince Microsoft! They need to add TRUNCATE PARTITION in SQL Server https://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/feedback/details/417926/truncate-partition-of-partitioned-table 2012/10/12 Romain HARDOUIN > > Also, take into account i/o since they are often a limiting factor. --e0cb4efe301c587f2804cbdb13c6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It seems you RAM/core ratio is different between your options.

So if those two are your only options I'd suggest the 16GB optio= n.

Still, the other things
* Concurrency=
* Fit in ram
* IO

Are very relevant= .

HTH

Kind regard= s/met vriendelijke groet,

Serge Fonville

http://= www.sergefonville.nl

Convince Microsoft!
They need to add TR= UNCATE PARTITION in SQL Server



2012/10/12 Romain HARDOUIN <rom= ain.hardouin@urssaf.fr>

Also, take into account i/o since they are often a limiting factor.

--e0cb4efe301c587f2804cbdb13c6--