Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.204.243])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 477FD1337B4E
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 25 Oct 2010 07:00:15 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) (amavisd-maia,
	port 10024) with ESMTP id 17417-04
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 25 Oct 2010 10:00:03 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: delayed 00:06:43.765005 by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from kontorsmtp1.one.com (kontorsmtp1.one.com [195.47.247.16])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B303E1337B34
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 25 Oct 2010 07:00:02 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from [192.168.212.21] (unknown [83.221.146.177])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by kontorsmtp1.one.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCC4D2F808C7F
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 25 Oct 2010 09:53:17 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <4CC5538D.8090806@one.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 11:53:17 +0200
From: "Christian Elmerot @ One.com" <ce@one.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
	rv:1.9.2.11) Gecko/20101006 Thunderbird/3.1.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: CPUs for new databases
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.91 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9,
	T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 201010/575
X-Sequence-Number: 40993

Hello,

What is the general view of performance CPU's nowadays when it comes to 
PostgreSQL performance? Which CPU is the better choice, in regards to 
RAM access-times, stream speed, cache synchronization etc. Which is the 
better CPU given the limitation of using AMD64 (x86-64)?

We're getting ready to replace our (now) aging db servers with some 
brand new with higher core count. The old ones are 4-socket dual-core 
Opteron 8218's with 48GB RAM. Right now the disk-subsystem is not the 
limiting factor so we're aiming for higher core-count and as well as 
faster and more RAM. We're also moving into the territory of version 9.0 
with streaming replication to be able to offload at least a part of the 
read-only queries to the slave database. The connection count on the 
database usually lies in the region of ~2500 connections and the 
database is small enough that it can be kept entirely in RAM (dump is 
about 2,5GB).

Regards,
Christian Elmerot