X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (wm.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63A979FB265 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2006 13:08:40 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 26070-07 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2006 16:08:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from olive.qinip.net (olive.qinip.net [62.100.30.40]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E61009FB1E1 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2006 13:01:31 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (h8441139206.dsl.speedlinq.nl [84.41.139.206]) by olive.qinip.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8872A18283; Fri, 8 Sep 2006 18:01:28 +0200 (MEST) Message-ID: <450193DB.7080104@tweakers.net> Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 18:01:31 +0200 From: Arjen van der Meijden User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (Windows/20060719) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Cramer CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Xeon Woodcrest/Dempsey vs Opteron Socket F/940 with References: <450104C8.2070709@tweakers.net> <398A981F-5DE4-4845-ACF7-BB5777CECF05@fastcrypt.com> <45016590.6050905@tweakers.net> <4D290F9E-240D-4F21-A182-8E193BEEA5CB@fastcrypt.com> In-Reply-To: <4D290F9E-240D-4F21-A182-8E193BEEA5CB@fastcrypt.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0636-3, 08-09-2006), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200609/52 X-Sequence-Number: 20738 On 8-9-2006 15:01 Dave Cramer wrote: > >> But then again, systems with the Woodcrest 5150 (the subtop one) and >> Opteron 280 (also the subtop one) are about equal in price, so its not >> a bad comparison in a bang-for-bucks point of view. The Dempsey was >> added to show how both the Opteron and the newer Woodcrest would >> compete against that one. > > Did I read this correctly that one of the Opterons in the test only had > 4G of ram vs 7 G in the Intel boxes ? If so this is a severely limiting > factor for postgresql at least? Actually, its not in this benchmark. Its not a large enough dataset to put any pressure on IO, not even with just 2GB of memory. But, to display it more acurately have a look here: http://tweakers.net/reviews/638/2 and then scroll down to the bottom-graph. As you can see, the 8GB-version was faster, but not that much to call it 'severely'. Unfortunately, the system just wasn't very stable with that 8GB memory (it was other memory, not just more). So we couldn't finish much benchmarks with it and decided, partially based on this graph to just go for the 4GB. Anyway, you can always compare the results of the Woodcrest with the Sun Fire x4200-results (called 'Opteron DDR' or 'Opteron 940' in the latest article) to see how a Opteron with 8GB of memory compares to the Woodcrest. More of those results can be found in this english article: http://tweakers.net/reviews/638 And in this Dutch one: http://tweakers.net/reviews/633