Message-ID: <450104C8.2070709@tweakers.net>
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 07:51:04 +0200
From: Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@tweakers.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (Windows/20060719)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Xeon Woodcrest/Dempsey vs Opteron Socket F/940 with postgresql and
	some SAS raid-figures
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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.

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