Message-ID: <4CC73FEF.9020805@agliodbs.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 13:54:07 -0700
From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US;
	rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20090223 Thunderbird/3.0b2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: CPUs for new databases
References: <4CC6CFAA.10107@one.com>
	<AANLkTi=ScGQiHB2ch+C_+K14TgjaO_3+x0+28QOFYeUU@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=ScGQiHB2ch+C_+K14TgjaO_3+x0+28QOFYeUU@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 10/26/10 7:50 AM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> For faster but fewer individual cores the Intels are pretty good.  For
> way more cores, each being pretty fast and having enough memory
> bandwidth to use all those cores, the AMDs are very impressive.  The
> Magny Cours AMDs are probably the best 4 socket cpus made.

In a general workload, fewer faster cores are better.  We do not scale
perfectly across cores.  The only case where that's not true is
maintaining lots of idle connections, and that's really better dealt
with in software.

So I've been buying Intel for the last couple years.  Would love to see
some testing on database workloads.

-- 
                                  -- Josh Berkus
                                     PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
                                     http://www.pgexperts.com