From: Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com>
To: Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@tweakers.net>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Xeon Woodcrest/Dempsey vs Opteron Socket F/940 with postgresql and some SAS raid-figures
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 07:48:57 -0400
Message-ID: <398A981F-5DE4-4845-ACF7-BB5777CECF05@fastcrypt.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <450104C8.2070709@tweakers.net>
References: <450104C8.2070709@tweakers.net>
Hi, Arjen,
On 8-Sep-06, at 1:51 AM, Arjen van der Meijden wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We've been running our "webapp database"-benchmark again on mysql
> and postgresql. This time using a Fujitsu-Siemens RX300 S3 machine
> equipped with a 2.66Ghz Woodcrest (5150) and a 3.73Ghz Dempsey
> (5080). And compared those results to our earlier undertaken
> Opteron benchmarks on 2.4GHz' Socket F- and 940-versions (2216, 280).
>
> You can see the english translation here:
> http://tweakers.net/reviews/646
>
> The Woodcrest is quite a bit faster than the Opterons. Actually...
> With Hyperthreading *enabled* the older Dempsey-processor is also
> faster than the Opterons with PostgreSQL. But then again, it is the
> top-model Dempsey and not a top-model Opteron so that isn't a clear
> win.
> Of course its clear that even a top-Opteron wouldn't beat the
> Dempsey's as easily as it would have beaten the older Xeon's before
> that.
Why wouldn't you use a top of the line Opteron ?
>
> Again PostgreSQL shows very good scalability, so good even
> HyperThreading adds extra performance to it with 4 cores enabled...
> while MySQL in every version we tested (5.1.9 is not displayed, but
> showed similar performance) was slower with HT enabled.
>
> Further more we received our ordered Dell MD1000 SAS-enclosure
> which has 15 SAS Fujitsu MAX3036RC disks and that unit is
> controlled using a Dell PERC 5/e.
> We've done some benchmarks (unfortunately everything is in Dutch
> for this).
>
> We tested varying amounts of disks in RAID10 (a set of 4,5,6 and 7
> 2-disk-mirrors striped), RAID50 and RAID5. The interfaces to
> display the results are in a google-stylee beta-state, but here is
> a list of all benchmarks done:
> http://tweakers.net/benchdb/search?query=md1000&ColcomboID=5
>
> Hover over the left titles to see how many disks and in what raid-
> level was done. Here is a comparison of 14 disk RAID5/50/10's:
> http://tweakers.net/benchdb/testcombo/wide/?TestcomboIDs%5B1156%
> 5D=1&TestcomboIDs%5B1178%5D=1&TestcomboIDs%5B1176%
> 5D=1&DB=Nieuws&Query=Keyword
>
> For raid5 we have some graphs:
> http://tweakers.net/benchdb/testcombo/1156
> Scroll down to see how adding disks improves performance on it. The
> Areca 1280 with WD Raptor's is a very good alternative (or even
> better) as you can see for most benchmarks, but is beaten as soon
> as the relative weight of random-IO increases (I/O-meter fileserver
> and database benchmarks), the processor on the 1280 is faster than
> the one on the Dell-controller so its faster in sequential IO.
> These benchmarks were not done using postgresql, so you shouldn't
> read them as absolute for all your situations ;-) But you can get a
> good impression I think.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Arjen van der Meijden
> Tweakers.net
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
>
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: pg@fastcrypt.com, acmmailing@tweakers.net
Subject: Re: Xeon Woodcrest/Dempsey vs Opteron Socket F/940 with postgresql and some SAS raid-figures
In-Reply-To: <398A981F-5DE4-4845-ACF7-BB5777CECF05@fastcrypt.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