In-Reply-To: <450104C8.2070709@tweakers.net>
References: <450104C8.2070709@tweakers.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <398A981F-5DE4-4845-ACF7-BB5777CECF05@fastcrypt.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com>
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
To: Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@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
>