Message-ID: <450197EA.7040900@kaltenbrunner.cc>
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 18:18:50 +0200
From: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060713)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@tweakers.net>
CC: Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com>,  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>
	<450193DB.7080104@tweakers.net>
In-Reply-To: <450193DB.7080104@tweakers.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Arjen van der Meijden wrote:
> 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.

interesting - so this is a mostly CPU-bound benchmark ?
Out of curiousity have you done any profiling on the databases under
test to see where they are spending their time ?


Stefan