pg.ddx.io  pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive  
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jim C. Nasby <jnasby@pervasive.com>
To: Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com>
Cc: Bill Moran <wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 18:55:04 -0500
Message-ID: <20060425235504.GO97354@pervasive.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1145990018.23538.234.camel@state.g2switchworks.com>
References: <20060425141435.6c8c163c.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>
	<1145990018.23538.234.camel@state.g2switchworks.com>

On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 01:33:38PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 13:14, Bill Moran wrote:
> > I've been given the task of making some hardware recommendations for
> > the next round of server purchases.  The machines to be purchased
> > will be running FreeBSD & PostgreSQL.
> > 
> > Where I'm stuck is in deciding whether we want to go with dual-core
> > pentiums with 2M cache, or with HT pentiums with 8M cache.
> 
> Given a choice between those two processors, I'd choose the AMD 64 x 2
> CPU.  It's a significantly better processor than either of the Intel
> choices.  And if you get the HT processor, you might as well turn of HT
> on a PostgreSQL machine.  I've yet to see it make postgresql run faster,
> but I've certainly seen HT make it run slower.

Actually, believe it or not, a coworker just saw HT double the
performance of pgbench on his desktop machine. Granted, not really a
representative test case, but it still blew my mind. This was with a
database that fit in his 1G of memory, and running windows XP. Both
cases were newly minted pgbench databases with a scale of 40. Testing
was 40 connections and 100 transactions. With HT he saw 47.6 TPS,
without it was 21.1.

I actually had IT build put w2k3 server on a HT box specifically so I
could do more testing.
-- 
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant      jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software      http://pervasive.com    work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf       cell: 512-569-9461



view thread (40+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <20060425235504.GO97354@pervasive.com>
Permalink:  ../20060425235504.GO97354@pervasive.com/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/20060425235504.GO97354@pervasive.com

 · 

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
  Cc: jnasby@pervasive.com, smarlowe@g2switchworks.com, wmoran@collaborativefusion.com
  Subject: Re: Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs
  In-Reply-To: <20060425235504.GO97354@pervasive.com>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox