Received: from localhost (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B7B49FB64A for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:40:13 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 09488-02 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:39:57 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: delayed 00:18:48.721024 by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from crestone.coronasolutions.com (crestone.coronasolutions.com [66.45.104.24]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A9C99FB313 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:40:01 -0400 (AST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by crestone.coronasolutions.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89ECF6445F8; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:21:10 -0700 (MST) Received: from crestone.coronasolutions.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (crestone.coronasolutions.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 13670-08; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:21:07 -0700 (MST) Received: from mac.local (c-67-166-27-159.hsd1.co.comcast.net [67.166.27.159]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by crestone.coronasolutions.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BB0D64458A for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:21:07 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <45D239D3.5020501@drivefaster.net> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:21:07 -0700 From: Dan Harris User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0b2 (Macintosh/20070116) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: PostgreSQL Performance Subject: Re: quad or dual core Intel CPUs References: <20070213194610.GA10789@juniper.net> <45D22829.8050503@tweakers.net> In-Reply-To: <45D22829.8050503@tweakers.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at coronasolutions.com X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.136 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=BAYES_50, FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200702/141 X-Sequence-Number: 23195 Arjen van der Meijden wrote: > > But be aware that there can be substantial and unexpected differences on > this relatively new platform due to simply changing the OS, like we saw > when going from linux 2.6.15 to 2.6.18, as you can see here: > http://tweakers.net/reviews/657/2 Having upgraded to 2.6.18 fairly recently, I am *very* interested in what caused the throughput to drop in 2.6.18? I haven't done any benchmarking on my system to know if it affected my usage pattern negatively, but I am curious if anyone knows why this happened? -Dan