Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF3F01337BC4 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 03:21:53 -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 22191-02-8 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:21:46 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.186]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46C461337B97 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 03:18:11 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.1.6] (mail.highperformancepostgresql.com [71.179.240.8]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mreu0) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0Mcixh-1QM2Il1FGj-00HtyP; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 08:18:10 +0200 Message-ID: <4D902809.4020304@2ndQuadrant.com> Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 02:17:45 -0400 From: Greg Smith User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20110307 Icedove/3.0.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Xeon twice the performance of opteron References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:CywroiQIXALuLnK0IW17hyWZMpYF2VMxRxxANHNZR8z 0LnZ7ElTfG0l5WxwfVur6paed6QX74wi+i/b3etPJ8pAZeBws9 eYWHkuJaL33P8QhBBCwASf6UvEbQ09I7HjDq9QPK3k/Le5VaGs nqfpO/QmBsgkiXCM5VSuW8dIwl//6S9MYCPjrEN40YTKRQ949t cPxKxkZ0me4S0HKfJyGOL+Rs3687MFpU6Zgyh3YO0k= X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201103/342 X-Sequence-Number: 43021 On 03/17/2011 11:13 AM, Jeff wrote: > three boxes: > A: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5345 @ 2.33GHz (Runs query > fastest) > 4MB cache > B: Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2352 (2.1GHZ) (Main > production box, currently, middle speed) > 512k cache > C: Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2378 (2.4GHZ) > 512k cache It's possible that transfer speed between the CPU and memory are very different between these systems when running a single-core operation. Intel often has an advantage there; I don't have any figures on this generation of processors to know for sure though. If you can get some idle time to run my stream-scaling tool from https://github.com/gregs1104/stream-scaling that might give you some insight. > Now here's where some odd stuff starts piling up: explain analyze > overhead on said queries: > 20ms on A, 50ms on B and 85ms on C(!!) I found an example in my book where EXPLAIN ANALYZE took a trivial COUNT(*) query from 8ms to 70ms. It's really not cheap for some sorts of things. > I know we're running an old kernel, I'm tempted to upgrade to see what > will happen, but at the same time I'm afraid it'll upgrade to a kernel > with a broken [insert major subsystem here] which has happened before. Running a production server on Fedora Core is a scary operation pretty much all the time. That said, I wouldn't consider 2.6.27 to be an old kernel--not when RHEL5 is still using 2.6.18. The kernel version you get for FC10 is probably quite behind on updates, though, relative to a kernel.org one that has kept getting bug fixes. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg@2ndQuadrant.com Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.us "PostgreSQL 9.0 High Performance": http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books