From: Jesper Krogh <jesper@krogh.cc>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Linux: more cores = less concurrency.
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 21:56:40 +0200
Message-ID: <4DA35CF8.7050205@krogh.cc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <356731.11980.qm@web26005.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
References: <356731.11980.qm@web26005.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
On 2011-04-11 21:42, Glyn Astill wrote:
>
> I'll have to try with the synthetic benchmarks next then, but somethings definately going off here. I'm seeing no disk activity at all as they're selects and all pages are in ram.
Well, if you dont have enough computations to be bottlenecked on the
cpu, then a 4 socket system is slower than a comparative 2 socket system
and a 1 socket system is even better.
If you have a 1 socket system, all of your data can be fetched from
"local" ram seen from you cpu, on a 2 socket, 50% of your accesses
will be "way slower", 4 socket even worse.
So the more sockets first begin to kick in when you can actually
use the CPU's or add in even more memory to keep your database
from going to disk due to size.
--
Jesper
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: jesper@krogh.cc
Subject: Re: Linux: more cores = less concurrency.
In-Reply-To: <4DA35CF8.7050205@krogh.cc>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox