Received: from localhost (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52E929FB2F5 for ; Sun, 20 May 2007 14:13:59 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 88338-05 for ; Sun, 20 May 2007 14:13:53 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from olive.qinip.net (olive.qinip.net [62.100.30.40]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBA579FB2E9 for ; Sun, 20 May 2007 14:13:54 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [10.0.0.21] (h8441139206.dsl.speedlinq.nl [84.41.139.206]) by olive.qinip.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53F7218426; Sun, 20 May 2007 19:13:52 +0200 (MEST) Message-ID: <465081D6.1080306@tweakers.net> Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 19:13:58 +0200 From: Arjen van der Meijden User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: jlmarin CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Diminishing bandwidth performance with multiple quad core X5355s References: <1178306856.209698.70370@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <4t3n33tp6ps3sqg09gfotgvvs1l9tvhs12@4ax.com> <1178351083.414445.314580@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <1179093615.331448.161490@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: <1179093615.331448.161490@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200705/378 X-Sequence-Number: 24768 On 14-5-2007 0:00 jlmarin wrote: > I wanted to post this even if it's a bit late on the thread because > right now I have exactly this kind of problem. > We're trying to figure out if a dual-Quadcore (Xeon) will be better > (cost/benefit wise) than a 4-way Opteron dualcore, for *our* program. We've benchmarked the Sun Fire x4600 (with the older socket 939 cpu's) and compared it to a much cheaper dual quad core xeon X5355. As you can see on the end of this page: http://tweakers.net/reviews/674/8 The 4-way dual core opteron performs less (in our benchmark) than the 2-way quad core xeon. Our benchmark does not consume a lot of memory, but I don't know which of the two profits most of that. Obviously it may well be that the Socket F opterons with support for DDR2 memory perform better, but we haven't seen much proof of that. Given the cost of a 4-way dual core opteron vs a 2-way quad core xeon, I'd go for the latter for now. The savings can be used to build a system with heavier I/O and/or more memory, which normally yield bigger gains in database land. For example a Dell 2900 with 2x X5355 + 16GB of memory costs about 7000 euros less than a Dell 6950 with 4x 8220 + 16GB. You can buy an additional MD1000 with 15x 15k rpm disks for that... And I doubt you'll find any real-world database benchmark that will favour the opteron-system if you look at the price/performance-picture. Of course this picture might very well change as soon as the new 'Barcelona' quad core opterons are finally available. > As you say, Opterons do definitely have a much better memory system. > But then a 4-way mobo is WAY more expensive that a dual-socket one... And it might be limited by NUMA and the relatively simple broadcast architecture for cache coherency. Best regards, Arjen van der Meijden