Message-ID: <448CA592.4040506@commandprompt.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 16:21:54 -0700
From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
Organization: Command Prompt, Inc.
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060522)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mario.splivalo@mobart.hr
CC: "Steinar H. Gunderson" <sgunderson@bigfoot.com>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: scaling up postgres
References: <200606030931.k539V38Y007877@smtp2.planet.net.tn>
	<20060603094355.GA23297@uio.no>
	<1150062140.23423.0.camel@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <1150062140.23423.0.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Mario Splivalo wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-06-03 at 11:43 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 10:31:03AM +0100, fzied@planet.tn wrote:
>>> I do have 2 identical beasts (4G - biproc Xeon 3.2 - 2 Gig NIC)
>>> One beast will be apache, and the other will be postgres.
>>> I'm using httperf/autobench for measurments and the best result I can get 
>>> is that my system can handle a trafiic of almost 1600 New con/sec.
>> What version of PostgreSQL? (8.1 is better than 8.0 is much better than 7.4.)
>> Have you remembered to turn HT off? Have you considered Opterons instead of
>> Xeons? (The Xeons generally scale bad with PostgreSQL.) What kind of queries
> 
> Could you point out to some more detailed reading on why Xeons are
> poorer choice than Opterons when used with PostgreSQL?

It isn't just PostgreSQL. It is any database. Opterons can move memory 
and whole lot faster then Xeons.

Joshua D. Drake

> 
> 	Mario
> 
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
> 


-- 

             === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
       Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
       Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
                      http://www.commandprompt.com/