Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([98.129.198.125]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TLcGQ-00054n-47 for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2012 16:02:34 +0000 Received: from smtp2.peak6.com ([38.98.137.9]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TLcGN-0004K5-V0 for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2012 16:02:32 +0000 X-AuditID: 0a02cb1e-b7f4d6d0000008be-4b-5074499c16f0 Message-ID: <50744A95.9020403@optionshouse.com> Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 11:02:29 -0500 From: Shaun Thomas Reply-To: Organization: Peak6 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120912 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Craig James CC: Subject: Re: Two identical systems, radically different performance References: In-Reply-To: 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+NgFupjleLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42LhSuEV053jWRJg8HuDgsX+FVsZLa7PPMfs wORxZedxRo8L+6axBzBFNTDaJObl5ZcklqQqpKQWJ9sq+ReUZObnFXvklxanKrhkFifnJGbm phYpKWSm2CqZKykU5CQmp+am5pXYKiUWFKTmpSjZcSlgABugssw8hdS85PyUzLx0WyXPYH9d CwtTS11DJbt4ZJDQyZLx49VN5oLHfBXLXm5hb2A8y93FyMkhIWAi8WjGckYIW0ziwr31bCA2 r4C+ROPHT0wgNouAisTSuz2sIDabgK7EpP4VYDVCQPG+szfAavgFhCX2fWhiBrFFBcIk3v06 ygoxR1Di5MwnLCC2iIC6RGfXDLB6ZgE1ibkPJ4HVCAv4Sqy70ww0kwto5i1Gic1PL4IlOAUC Jf41rmGEaLCVuDDnOguELS+x/e0cZogjVCVWNE9kg3hAQeL/lXdMExiFZiHZPQtJ+ywk7QsY mVcxiheXJSZnZJoVFOeWFBjqFaQmZpvp5aWWbGIExS7TabkdjCsuKB5iFOBgVOLh/RBVHCDE mlhWXJl7iFGCg1lJhHe/fUmAEG9KYmVValF+fFFpTmrxIcZkYKBNZJYSTc4HppW8knhDY0NL U0sTM0tzY2MD0oSVxHkV+pQChATSgaknOzW1ILUIZgsTB6dUA+MRidioKTqbTVPyG1Pyrfev uV1s9OXOdYtNCaXm21evFvb8+1VatSbMk+t1GIfbtW1Ltt8/LGhuqKv5Y9vUpluzLTtseENc lu+50/eg/vHiSIO72ycyXrhwZNEBC0XxftGT24OCcyOaPGeUiOsKJ1+U9EvlWro/4bHA5UUq CR3q5gfsktx2MiixFGckGmoxFxUnAgDZgKzvIQMAAA== X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Archive-Number: 201210/81 X-Sequence-Number: 48040 On 10/08/2012 06:40 PM, Craig James wrote: > Nobody has commented on the hyperthreading question yet ... does it > really matter? The old (fast) server has hyperthreading disabled, and > the new (slower) server has hyperthreads enabled. I doubt it's this. With the newer post-Nehalem processors, hyperthreading is actually much better than it was before. But you also have this: CPU Speed L3 Cache DDR3 Speed E5606 2.13Ghz 8MB 800Mhz E5620 2.4Ghz 12MB 1066Mhz Even with "equal" threads, the CPUs you have in the new server, as opposed to the old, are much worse. The E5606 doesn't even have hyper-threading, so it's not an issue here. In fact, if you enabled it on the old server, it would likely get *much faster*. We saw a 40% improvement by enabling hyper-threading. Sure, it's not 100%, but it's not negative or zero, either. Basically we can see, at the very least, that your servers are not "identical." Little things like this can make a massive difference. The old server has a much better CPU. Even crippled without hyperthreading, I could see it beating the new server. One thing you might want to check in the BIOS of the new server, is to make sure that power saving mode is disabled everywhere you can find it. Some servers come with that set by default, and that puts the CPU to sleep occasionally, and the spin-up necessary to re-engage it is punishing and inconsistent. We saw 20-40% drops in pgbench pretty much at random, when CPU power saving was enabled. This doesn't cover why your IO subsystem is slower on the new system, but I suspect it might have something to do with the memory speed. It suggests a slower PCI bus, which could choke your RAID card. -- 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