Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2F2864FCEE for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:55:30 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 80081-06 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:55:27 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from net-domino.com (net-domino.com [74.208.97.86]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E13964FCCE for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:55:26 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (u15278506.onlinehome-server.com [74.208.97.86]) by net-domino.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m9DEtJgW015520 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:55:22 -0400 Message-ID: <48F3615B.4050705@mochima.com> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:55:23 -0400 From: Carlos Moreno User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (X11/20080925) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: "Mysterious" issues with newly installed 8.3 References: <48EE98FE.60100@mochima.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Added-Header: X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200810/67 X-Sequence-Number: 31648 Thanks Greg and others for your replies, > This is really something to watch out for. One quick thing first > though: what frequency does the CPU on the new server show when you > look at /proc/cpuinfo? If you see "cpu MHz: 1000.00" It was like that in the initial setup --- I just disabled the cpuspeed service (service cpuspeed stop; chkconfig cpuspeed off ), and now it shows the full 2600MHz at all times (the installation of PG was done after this change) > Another really handy way to gauge memory speed on Linux, if there are > similar kernels installed on each system like your case, is to use > "hdparm -T". Great tip! I was familiar with the -T switch, but was not clear on the notion that the figure tells you that much about the overall memory performance! Anyway, I checked on both, and the new system is slightly superior (around 2200 for the new, around 1900 for the old one) --- a bit below the figure you mention you'd expect (2500 --- though that was for a 2.8GHz Opteron, presumably with faster FSB and faster memory??) I guess my logical next step is what was suggested by Scott --- install 8.2.4 and repeat the same tests with this one; that should give me interesting information. Anyway, if I find something interesting or puzzling, I would post again with the results of those tests. Thanks again for the valuable advice and comments! Carlos --