Message-ID: <4CC86978.9070008@agliodbs.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:03:36 -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>
	<4CC73FEF.9020805@agliodbs.com> <m3ocagplgf.fsf@jhcloos.com>
	<ia7r55$5ih$1@dough.gmane.org>
	<AANLkTikvfjd_sHaaQSj-PvezhJEb0USZAyAAkY_XqHFu@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikvfjd_sHaaQSj-PvezhJEb0USZAyAAkY_XqHFu@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 10/26/10 6:14 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>   There was an earlier thread with
> Greg and I in it where we posted the memory bandwidth numbers for that
> machine and it was insane how much data all 48 cores could pump into /
> out of memory at the same time.

Well, the next step then is to do some database server benchmarking.

My experience has been that PostgreSQL scales poorly past 30 cores, or
even at lower levels depending on the workload.  So it would be
interesting to see if the memory bandwidth on the AMDs makes up for our
scaling issues.

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