pg.ddx.io pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feedPerformances with new Intel Core* processors
9+ messages / 9 participants
[nested] [flat]
* Performances with new Intel Core* processors
@ 2006-07-31 12:53 Jonathan Ballet <jon@multani.info>
2006-07-31 15:52 ` Re: Performances with new Intel Core* processors Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Ballet @ 2006-07-31 12:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-performance
Hello,
I've read a lot of mails here saying how good is the Opteron with PostgreSQL,
and a lot of people seems to recommend it (instead of Xeon).
However, it seems that new Intel processors, Core Duo and Core 2 Duo, performs
very well, in desktop environment at least.
I wonder what can we expect with them, do anybody have done any experiments with
those processors ?
Regards,
Jonathan Ballet
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Performances with new Intel Core* processors
2006-07-31 12:53 Performances with new Intel Core* processors Jonathan Ballet <jon@multani.info>
@ 2006-07-31 15:52 ` Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
2006-07-31 16:30 ` Re: Performances with new Intel Core* processors Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@tweakers.net>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Merlin Moncure @ 2006-07-31 15:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan Ballet <jon@multani.info>; +Cc: pgsql-performance
On 7/31/06, Jonathan Ballet <jon@multani.info> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've read a lot of mails here saying how good is the Opteron with PostgreSQL,
> and a lot of people seems to recommend it (instead of Xeon).
>
I am a huge fan of the opteron but intel certainly seems to have a
winner for workstations. from my research on a per core basis the c2d
is a stronger chip with the 4mb cache version but it is unclear which
is a better choice for pg on 4 and 8 core platforms. I have direct
personal experience with pg on dual (4 core) and quad (8 core) opteron
and the performance is fantastic, especially on 64 bit o/s with > 2gb
memory (vs 32 bit xeon).
also opteron is 64 bit and mature so i think is a better choice for
server platform at the moment, especially for databases. my mind
could be changed but it is too soon right now. consider how long it
took for the opteron to prove itself in the server world.
merlin
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Performances with new Intel Core* processors
2006-07-31 12:53 Performances with new Intel Core* processors Jonathan Ballet <jon@multani.info>
2006-07-31 15:52 ` Re: Performances with new Intel Core* processors Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
@ 2006-07-31 16:30 ` Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@tweakers.net>
2006-07-31 19:57 ` Re: Performances with new Intel Core* processors Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
2006-07-31 20:27 ` Re: Performances with new Intel Core* processors Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com>
2006-07-31 21:04 ` Re: Performances with new Intel Core* processors Vivek Khera <vivek@khera.org>
2006-08-01 07:28 ` Re: Performances with new Intel Core* processors Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de>
0 siblings, 4 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Arjen van der Meijden @ 2006-07-31 16:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>; +Cc: Jonathan Ballet <jon@multani.info>; pgsql-performance
On 31-7-2006 17:52, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On 7/31/06, Jonathan Ballet <jon@multani.info> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I've read a lot of mails here saying how good is the Opteron with
>> PostgreSQL,
>> and a lot of people seems to recommend it (instead of Xeon).
>
> I am a huge fan of the opteron but intel certainly seems to have a
> winner for workstations. from my research on a per core basis the c2d
> is a stronger chip with the 4mb cache version but it is unclear which
> is a better choice for pg on 4 and 8 core platforms. I have direct
> personal experience with pg on dual (4 core) and quad (8 core) opteron
> and the performance is fantastic, especially on 64 bit o/s with > 2gb
> memory (vs 32 bit xeon).
As far as I know there is no support for more than two Woodcrest
processors (Core 2 version of the Xeon) in a system. So when using a
scalable application (like postgresql) and you need more than four
cores, Opteron is still the only option in the x86 world.
The Woodcrest however is faster than a comparably priced Opteron using
Postgresql. In a benchmark we did (and have yet to publish) a Woodcrest
system outperforms a comparable Sun Fire x4200. And even if you'd adjust
it to a clock-by-clock comparison, Woodcrest would still beat the
Opteron. If you'd adjust it to a price/performance comparison (I
configured a HP DL 380G5-system which is similar to what we tested on
their website), the x4200 would loose as well. Mind you a Opteron 280
2.4Ghz or 285 2.6Ghz costs more than a Woodcrest 5150 2.66Ghz or 5160
3Ghz (resp.), but the FB-Dimm memory for the Xeons is more expensive
than the DDR or DDR2 ECC REG memory you need in a Opteron.
> also opteron is 64 bit and mature so i think is a better choice for
> server platform at the moment, especially for databases. my mind
> could be changed but it is too soon right now. consider how long it
> took for the opteron to prove itself in the server world.
Intel Woodcrest can do 64-bit as well. As can all recent Xeons. Whether
Opteron does a better job at 64-bit than a Xeon, I don't know (our test
was in 64-bit though). I have not seen our Xeon 64-bits production
servers be any less stable than our Opteron 64-bit servers.
For a database system, however, processors hardly ever are the main
bottleneck, are they? So you should probably go for a set of "fast
processors" from your favorite supplier and focus mainly on lots of
memory and fast disks. Whether that employs Opterons or Xeon Woodcrest
(no other Xeons are up to that competition, imho) doesn't really matter.
We'll be publishing the article in the near future, and I'll give a
pointer to it (even though it will be in Dutch, you can still read the
graphs).
Best regards,
Arjen van der Meijden
Tweakers.net
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Performances with new Intel Core* processors
2006-07-31 12:53 Performances with new Intel Core* processors Jonathan Ballet <jon@multani.info>
2006-07-31 15:52 ` Re: Performances with new Intel Core* processors Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
2006-07-31 16:30 ` Re: Performances with new Intel Core* processors Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@tweakers.net>
@ 2006-07-31 19:57 ` Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
3 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Bruce Momjian @ 2006-07-31 19:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@tweakers.net>; +Cc: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>; Jonathan Ballet <jon@multani.info>; pgsql-performance
Good to know. We have been waiting for performance comparisons on
the new Intel CPUs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arjen van der Meijden wrote:
> On 31-7-2006 17:52, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> > On 7/31/06, Jonathan Ballet <jon@multani.info> wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I've read a lot of mails here saying how good is the Opteron with
> >> PostgreSQL,
> >> and a lot of people seems to recommend it (instead of Xeon).
> >
> > I am a huge fan of the opteron but intel certainly seems to have a
> > winner for workstations. from my research on a per core basis the c2d
> > is a stronger chip with the 4mb cache version but it is unclear which
> > is a better choice for pg on 4 and 8 core platforms. I have direct
> > personal experience with pg on dual (4 core) and quad (8 core) opteron
> > and the performance is fantastic, especially on 64 bit o/s with > 2gb
> > memory (vs 32 bit xeon).
>
> As far as I know there is no support for more than two Woodcrest
> processors (Core 2 version of the Xeon) in a system. So when using a
> scalable application (like postgresql) and you need more than four
> cores, Opteron is still the only option in the x86 world.
>
> The Woodcrest however is faster than a comparably priced Opteron using
> Postgresql. In a benchmark we did (and have yet to publish) a Woodcrest
> system outperforms a comparable Sun Fire x4200. And even if you'd adjust
> it to a clock-by-clock comparison, Woodcrest would still beat the
> Opteron. If you'd adjust it to a price/performance comparison (I
> configured a HP DL 380G5-system which is similar to what we tested on
> their website), the x4200 would loose as well. Mind you a Opteron 280
> 2.4Ghz or 285 2.6Ghz costs more than a Woodcrest 5150 2.66Ghz or 5160
> 3Ghz (resp.), but the FB-Dimm memory for the Xeons is more expensive
> than the DDR or DDR2 ECC REG memory you need in a Opteron.
>
> > also opteron is 64 bit and mature so i think is a better choice for
> > server platform at the moment, especially for databases. my mind
> > could be changed but it is too soon right now. consider how long it
> > took for the opteron to prove itself in the server world.
>
> Intel Woodcrest can do 64-bit as well. As can all recent Xeons. Whether
> Opteron does a better job at 64-bit than a Xeon, I don't know (our test
> was in 64-bit though). I have not seen our Xeon 64-bits production
> servers be any less stable than our Opteron 64-bit servers.
> For a database system, however, processors hardly ever are the main
> bottleneck, are they? So you should probably go for a set of "fast
> processors" from your favorite supplier and focus mainly on lots of
> memory and fast disks. Whether that employs Opterons or Xeon Woodcrest
> (no other Xeons are up to that competition, imho) doesn't really matter.
>
> We'll be publishing the article in the near future, and I'll give a
> pointer to it (even though it will be in Dutch, you can still read the
> graphs).
>
> Best regards,
>
> Arjen van der Meijden
> Tweakers.net
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
--
Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Performances with new Intel Core* processors
2006-07-31 12:53 Performances with new Intel Core* processors Jonathan Ballet <jon@multani.info>
2006-07-31 15:52 ` Re: Performances with new Intel Core* processors Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
2006-07-31 16:30 ` Re: Performances with new Intel Core* processors Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@tweakers.net>
@ 2006-07-31 20:27 ` Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com>
3 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Scott Marlowe @ 2006-07-31 20:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@tweakers.net>; +Cc: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>; Jonathan Ballet <jon@multani.info>; pgsql-performance
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 11:30, Arjen van der Meijden wrote:
> On 31-7-2006 17:52, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> For a database system, however, processors hardly ever are the main
> bottleneck, are they? So you should probably go for a set of "fast
> processors" from your favorite supplier and focus mainly on lots of
> memory and fast disks. Whether that employs Opterons or Xeon Woodcrest
> (no other Xeons are up to that competition, imho) doesn't really matter.
Just making a quick comment here. While the CPU core itself nowadays
certainly is not the most common bottleneck for a fast db server, the
ability of the CPU/Memory combo to act as a datapump IS often a limit.
In that case, you want to go with whichever setup gives you the fastest
access to memory.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Performances with new Intel Core* processors
2006-07-31 12:53 Performances with new Intel Core* processors Jonathan Ballet <jon@multani.info>
2006-07-31 15:52 ` Re: Performances with new Intel Core* processors Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
2006-07-31 16:30 ` Re: Performances with new Intel Core* processors Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@tweakers.net>
@ 2006-07-31 21:04 ` Vivek Khera <vivek@khera.org>
2006-08-01 04:26 ` Re: Performances with new Intel Core* processors Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
3 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Vivek Khera @ 2006-07-31 21:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-performance
On Jul 31, 2006, at 12:30 PM, Arjen van der Meijden wrote:
> For a database system, however, processors hardly ever are the main
> bottleneck, are they? So you should probably go for a set of "fast
> processors" from your favorite supplier and focus mainly on lots of
> memory and fast disks. Whether that employs Opterons or Xeon
> Woodcrest (no other Xeons are up to that
No, but it *does* matter how fast said processor can sling the memory
around, and in my experience, the opterons have been much better at
that due to the efficiency of the memory transport layer.
Attachments:
smime.p7s (application/pkcs7-signature, 2.5K) download
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Performances with new Intel Core* processors
2006-07-31 12:53 Performances with new Intel Core* processors Jonathan Ballet <jon@multani.info>
2006-07-31 15:52 ` Re: Performances with new Intel Core* processors Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
2006-07-31 16:30 ` Re: Performances with new Intel Core* processors Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@tweakers.net>
2006-07-31 21:04 ` Re: Performances with new Intel Core* processors Vivek Khera <vivek@khera.org>
@ 2006-08-01 04:26 ` Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Luke Lonergan @ 2006-08-01 04:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vivek Khera <vivek@khera.org>; pgsql-performance
Vivek,
On 7/31/06 2:04 PM, "Vivek Khera" <vivek@khera.org> wrote:
> No, but it *does* matter how fast said processor can sling the memory
> around, and in my experience, the opterons have been much better at
> that due to the efficiency of the memory transport layer.
My Mac laptop with a Core 1 and DDR2 RAM does 2700 MB/s memory bandwidth.
The Core 2 also has lower memory latency than the Opteron.
That said - Intel still hasn't figured out how to do cache-coherent SMP
scaling yet - the Opteron has the outstanding EV6/HTX bus and the cc-numa
cache coherency logic working today.
- Luke
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Performances with new Intel Core* processors
2006-07-31 12:53 Performances with new Intel Core* processors Jonathan Ballet <jon@multani.info>
2006-07-31 15:52 ` Re: Performances with new Intel Core* processors Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
2006-07-31 16:30 ` Re: Performances with new Intel Core* processors Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@tweakers.net>
@ 2006-08-01 07:28 ` Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de>
2006-08-03 05:08 ` Re: Performances with new Intel Core* processors Denis Lussier <denisl@enterprisedb.com>
3 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Florian Weimer @ 2006-08-01 07:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@tweakers.net>; +Cc: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>; Jonathan Ballet <jon@multani.info>; pgsql-performance
* Arjen van der Meijden:
> For a database system, however, processors hardly ever are the main
> bottleneck, are they?
Not directly, but the choice of processor influences which
chipsets/mainboards are available, which in turn has some impact on
the number of RAM slots. (According to our hardware supplier, beyound
8 GB, the price per GB goes up sharply.) Unfortunately, it seems that
the Core 2 Duo mainboards do not change that much in this area.
--
Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de>
BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/
Durlacher Allee 47 tel: +49-721-96201-1
D-76131 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Performances with new Intel Core* processors
2006-07-31 12:53 Performances with new Intel Core* processors Jonathan Ballet <jon@multani.info>
2006-07-31 15:52 ` Re: Performances with new Intel Core* processors Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
2006-07-31 16:30 ` Re: Performances with new Intel Core* processors Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@tweakers.net>
2006-08-01 07:28 ` Re: Performances with new Intel Core* processors Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de>
@ 2006-08-03 05:08 ` Denis Lussier <denisl@enterprisedb.com>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Denis Lussier @ 2006-08-03 05:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de>; +Cc: Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@tweakers.net>; Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>; Jonathan Ballet <jon@multani.info>; pgsql-performance
My theory, based entirely on what I have read in this thread, is that a low
end server (really a small workstation) with an Intel Dual Core CPU is
likely an excellent PG choice for the lowest end.
I'll try to snag an Intel Dual Core workstation in the near future and
report back DBT2 scores comparing it to a similarly equiped 1 socket AMD
dual core workstation. I'll keep the data size small to fit entirely in
RAM so the DBT2 isn't it's usual disk bound dog when you run it the "right"
way (according to tpc-c guidelines).
--Denis
Dweeb from EnterpriseDB
On 8/1/06, Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de> wrote:
>
> * Arjen van der Meijden:
>
> > For a database system, however, processors hardly ever are the main
> > bottleneck, are they?
>
> Not directly, but the choice of processor influences which
> chipsets/mainboards are available, which in turn has some impact on
> the number of RAM slots. (According to our hardware supplier, beyound
> 8 GB, the price per GB goes up sharply.) Unfortunately, it seems that
> the Core 2 Duo mainboards do not change that much in this area.
>
> --
> Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de>
> BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/
> Durlacher Allee 47 tel: +49-721-96201-1
> D-76131 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
> choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
> match
>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-08-03 05:08 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-07-31 12:53 Performances with new Intel Core* processors Jonathan Ballet <jon@multani.info>
2006-07-31 15:52 ` Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
2006-07-31 16:30 ` Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@tweakers.net>
2006-07-31 19:57 ` Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
2006-07-31 20:27 ` Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com>
2006-07-31 21:04 ` Vivek Khera <vivek@khera.org>
2006-08-01 04:26 ` Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2006-08-01 07:28 ` Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de>
2006-08-03 05:08 ` Denis Lussier <denisl@enterprisedb.com>
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