From: Sven Geisler <sgeisler@aeccom.com>
To: Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
Cc: mario.splivalo@mobart.hr, "Steinar H. Gunderson" <sgunderson@bigfoot.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: scaling up postgres
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:21:05 +0200
Message-ID: <448D4E21.3010604@aeccom.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <448CA592.4040506@commandprompt.com>
References: <200606030931.k539V38Y007877@smtp2.planet.net.tn>
<20060603094355.GA23297@uio.no>
<1150062140.23423.0.camel@localhost.localdomain>
<448CA592.4040506@commandprompt.com>
Hi all,
Joshua D. Drake schrieb:
> Mario Splivalo wrote:
>> 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.
Yes. You can run good old memtest86 and you see the difference.
Here my numbers with memtest86 (blocksize 128 MB).
HP DL580 G3 (4-way XEON MP - DDR RAM) => 670 MByte/sec
FSC RX600 S2 (4-way XEOM MP DC - DDR2-400 PC2-3200) => 1300 MByte/sec
HP DL585 (4-way Opteron DDR2-400 PC2-3200) => 1500 MByte/sec
I used memxfer5b.cpp.
Cheers Sven.
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: sgeisler@aeccom.com, jd@commandprompt.com, sgunderson@bigfoot.com
Subject: Re: scaling up postgres
In-Reply-To: <448D4E21.3010604@aeccom.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