Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29])
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <sthomas@optionshouse.com>) id 1THLVe-0003sT-7P
	for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 21:20:38 +0000
Received: from smtp.peak6.com ([38.98.137.6])
	by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <sthomas@optionshouse.com>) id 1THLVb-0004vZ-I1
	for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 21:20:37 +0000
X-AuditID: 0a64cb1e-b7fb36d000000f29-2c-5064c31c21ac
Message-ID: <5064C321.5080204@optionshouse.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:20:33 -0500
From: Shaun Thomas <sthomas@optionshouse.com>
Reply-To: <sthomas@optionshouse.com>
Organization: Peak6
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686;
	rv:15.0) Gecko/20120827 Thunderbird/15.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Evgeny Shishkin <itparanoia@gmail.com>
CC: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>, "M. D." <lists@turnkey.bz>, Craig
	James <cjames@emolecules.com>, <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: hardware advice
References: <5064A4DC.5090304@turnkey.bz>
	<CAFwQ8rf4Cnt9Ksd+3GbkkWtZ3NM+hYukd1gKRLmsihXnKzVteA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5064BB1E.4090904@turnkey.bz>
	<CAOR=d=02nGu3fMppkVZWeiDYOpWrXi1PT2ZSxx-fZ+Uxp2WuOw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5064BEA6.3000506@optionshouse.com>
	<FEEF9188-78D9-4725-8796-77FAA71AAE3F@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <FEEF9188-78D9-4725-8796-77FAA71AAE3F@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [10.10.201.64]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: 
 H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrOIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsXClcIrpitzOCXA4FKLnsX+FVsZLfZsns5u
	sXPRDmaL6zPPMVss+3Se0YHV48rO44weO2fdZfe4sG8au8fbZYvZA1iiGhhtEvPy8ksSS1IV
	UlKLk22V/AtKMvPzij3yS4tTFVwyi5NzEjNzU4uUFDJTbJXMlRQKchKTU3NT80pslRILClLz
	UpTsuBQwgA1QWWaeQmpecn5KZl66rZJnsL+uhYWppa6hkl08MkjoZMk403yXsWA2R8X6u70s
	DYwH2LoYOTkkBEwkpqz6xAphi0lcuLceKM7BwSugL7FnJhdImEVAVWL2kzcsIDabgK7EpP4V
	YK1CAioSfWdvMIHY/ALCEvs+NDGD2KICQRLLNn4Hi/MKCEqcnPmEBWSkiICWxOlX2iBhZoFJ
	jBIvNhiD2MICahKbT/8AGskFNHIZk8Srjl1guzgFbCWmv9jOCNFgK3FhznUWCFteYvvbOcwQ
	N6hKrGieCPWKgsT/K++YJjAKzUKyehaS9llI2hcwMq9iFC8uS0zOyDQtKM4tKTDUK0hNzDbT
	y0st2cQIjvTTcjsYpy9VPMQowMGoxMNruCglQIg1say4MvcQowQHs5IIr/NioBBvSmJlVWpR
	fnxRaU5q8SFGU2CYTWSWEk3OByahvJJ4Q2NDS1NLEzNLc2NjAyVxXts+pQAhgXRgashOTS1I
	LYLpY+LglGpgZPZfnzj1n0qHt/IRKaHZvu5n/4RJWdj/f6vy99Tbpm3bX02eN/VUvVv4IYdT
	jktW7LJ9FrtNgS2nbfO9M4dWuXGxd4XOrj+97n28nGDfK71rMzm5lE0eHXyt52cqtP+5lclK
	rZXnV9zeu3T5fj3la5d+vvQI3b9Sa1/Wqln3nhUfSJP+cDTO5oUSS3FGoqEWc1FxIgDkaJ8V
	CgMAAA==
X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-)
X-Archive-Number: 201209/176
X-Sequence-Number: 47922

On 09/27/2012 04:08 PM, Evgeny Shishkin wrote:

> from benchmarking on my r/o in memory database, i can tell that 9.1
> on x5650 is faster than 9.2 on e2440.

How did you run those benchmarks? I find that incredibly hard to 
believe. Not only does 9.2 scale *much* better than 9.1, but the E5-2440 
is a 15MB cache Sandy Bridge, as opposed to a 12MB cache Nehalem. 
Despite the slightly lower clock speed, you should have much better 
performance with 9.2 on the 2440.

I know one thing you might want to check is to make sure both servers 
have turbo mode enabled, and power savings turned off for all CPUs. 
Check the BIOS for the CPU settings, because some motherboards and 
vendors have different defaults. I know we got inconsistent and much 
worse performance until we made those two changes on our HP systems.

We use pgbench for benchmarking, so there's not anything I can really 
send you. :)

-- 
Shaun Thomas
OptionsHouse | 141 W. Jackson Blvd. | Suite 500 | Chicago IL, 60604
312-444-8534
sthomas@optionshouse.com

______________________________________________

See http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer/ for terms and conditions related to this email