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 120B59FB37C for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2006 06:30:54 -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 46417-05 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2006 09:30:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:32:49.294613 by SQLgrey- Received: from svr4.postgresql.org (svr4.postgresql.org [66.98.251.159]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BEB79FB372 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2006 06:30:36 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.3 Received: from smtp-vbr13.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr13.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.33]) by svr4.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E21525AF8B9 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2006 08:57:45 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [10.0.0.12] (a80-126-182-198.adsl.xs4all.nl [80.126.182.198]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr13.xs4all.nl (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k8M8vgGb076192; Fri, 22 Sep 2006 10:57:42 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from nicky@valuecare.nl) Message-ID: <4513A59E.3000807@valuecare.nl> Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 10:58:06 +0200 From: nicky User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060919) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hannes Dorbath Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner 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: 200609/299 X-Sequence-Number: 20985 Hello Hannes, The text above the pictures on page 13. Translated in my crappy english. The confrontation between the Opteron and Woodcrest was inevitable in this article, but who can add 1 and 1 should have known from the previous two pages that it doesn't look that good for AMD . Under loads of 25 till 100 simultaneous visitors, the Xeon performs 24% better with MSQL 4.1.20, 30% better in MySQL 5.0.20a and 37% better in PostgreSQL 8.2-dev. In short, the Socket F Opteron doesn't stand a chance, although the Woodcrest scales better and has such a high startpoint with one core, there is no chance of beating it. We can imagine that the Opteron with more memory and production hardware, would be a few % faster, but the difference with the Woodcrest is that high that we have a hard time believing that the complete picture would change that much. Regards, Nick Hannes Dorbath wrote: > A colleague pointed me to this site tomorrow: > > http://tweakers.net/reviews/642/13 > > I can't read the language, so can't get a grip on what exactly the > "benchmark" was about. > > Their diagrams show `Request per seconds'. What should that mean? How > many connections PG accepted per second? So they measured the OS fork > performance? Should that value be of any interrest? Anyone with heavy > OLTP workload will use persistent connections or a connection pool in > front. > > Do they mean TPS? That woulnd't make much sense in a CPU benchmark, as > OLTP workload is typically limited by the disc subsystem. > > Can someone enlighten me what this site is about? > >