Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.182]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2DD32E3C84 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:58:53 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 59929-06-3 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:58:43 -0400 (AST) Received: from lists.commandprompt.com (host-159.commandprompt.net [207.173.203.159]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B24B62E43C5 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:46:58 -0400 (AST) Received: from [192.168.1.226] (or-69-34-217-90.sta.embarqhsd.net [69.34.217.90]) (authenticated bits=0) by lists.commandprompt.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lBCFkqRA001136 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 12 Dec 2007 07:46:52 -0800 Message-ID: <47600274.40009@commandprompt.com> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 07:47:00 -0800 From: "Joshua D. Drake" Organization: Command Prompt, Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.13 (Windows/20070809) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mlunnon@rwa-net.co.uk CC: Sven Geisler , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Limited performance on multi core server References: <475FB50B.8060701@rwa-net.co.uk> <475FCF1E.7030608@aeccom.com> <475FED09.2030102@rwa-net.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <475FED09.2030102@rwa-net.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (lists.commandprompt.com [207.173.203.159]); Wed, 12 Dec 2007 07:46:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200712/182 X-Sequence-Number: 27998 Matthew Lunnon wrote: > Hi Sven, > > Does this mean that one option I have is to use a multi core Intel based > server instead of an AMD based server? Wow... hold on. >> I remember that I also an issue with AMD Opterons before Pg 8.1 >> There is a specific Opteron behaviour on shared memory locks which adds >> a extra "penalty" during the execution time for Pg code before 8.1. I would like to see some proof of this. >> I can you provide my patch for Pg 8.0 which should be adaptable for Pg >> 7.4 if you can compile PostgreSQL. >> The real answer here is to upgrade to 8.1.10 or 8.2.5. 64bit if you can. >>> I have a 4 * dual core 64bit AMD OPTERON server with 16G of RAM, running >>> postgres 7.4.3. This has been recompiled on the server for 64 stored >>> procedure parameters, (I assume this makes postgres 64 bit but are not This type of machine, assuming you have decent IO available will generally be very fast with anything >= 8.1. >>> changes to postgresql.sql: >>> >>> max_connections = 500 >>> shared_buffers = 96000 Way to high for 7.4. Way to low for 8.1 or above (based on what you mention your work load is) >>> sort_mem = 10240 Based on your specs this actually may be fine but I would suggest reviewing it after you upgrade. >>> effective_cache_size = 1000000 >>> Again, too low for 8.1 or above. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- The PostgreSQL Company: http://www.commandprompt.com/