Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29])
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <sickpig@opinioni.net>) id 1TNn1c-00052H-1O
	for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 15:56:16 +0000
Received: from host36.ns3.it ([80.79.54.36] helo=mail.opinioni.net)
	by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <sickpig@opinioni.net>) id 1TNn1W-0004fQ-0V
	for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 15:56:15 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mail.opinioni.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 700464E2331;
	Mon, 15 Oct 2012 17:58:50 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mail.opinioni.net ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (opinioni.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id lNdBDrjn21Yw; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 17:58:50 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.1.50] (78-134-6-72.v4.ngi.it [78.134.6.72])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mail.opinioni.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 318A64E2330;
	Mon, 15 Oct 2012 17:58:50 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <507C3217.6040905@opinioni.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 17:56:07 +0200
From: Andrea Suisani <sickpig@opinioni.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:16.0) Gecko/20121011 Thunderbird/16.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>
CC: Craig James <cjames@emolecules.com>,
 pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Two identical systems, radically different performance
References: 
 <CAFwQ8rcvw4mSoJ9q+ouONCeB9dg1T9gAUV5J27MpVZrehRHayQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFwQ8rfm2AcuoFHDfBLA_hg7ffbsYNsrsaJPDqcOeGqaVW02OQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFwQ8rcyCKcoeEn62_QHMRSmJM03ULERtW6_R=3TaO0twOEV9A@mail.gmail.com>
	<5076D433.7090605@opinioni.net>
	<CAGTBQpYGyq70q_S_dUngSwB7yLbbCxetnfXpaMC9LEr7zL6iWA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5076DA4E.80504@opinioni.net> <507BC8DE.9050109@opinioni.net>
	<CAGTBQpaHGxo9iFWoTJhuU+eTOK13Q-YkQk+9QC7xuT5HDmbv6w@mail.gmail.com>
	<507C2ACA.3020503@opinioni.net>
	<CAGTBQpbt6sFkbGqELBzesTuz=v=iY3NQPdf+_AppfN7KNzkJEQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAGTBQpbt6sFkbGqELBzesTuz=v=iY3NQPdf+_AppfN7KNzkJEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-)
X-Archive-Number: 201210/190
X-Sequence-Number: 48149

On 10/15/2012 05:28 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Andrea Suisani <sickpig@opinioni.net> wrote:
>>> It does prove they're not equivalent though.
>>>
>>
>> sure you're right.
>>
>> It's just that my bet was on a higher throughput
>> when HT was isabled from the BIOS (as you stated
>> previously in this thread).
>
> Yes, mine too. It's bizarre. If I were you, I'd look into it more
> deeply. It may be a flaw in your test methodology (maybe you disabled
> the wrong cores?).

this is the first thing I thought after looking at the results
but I've double-checked cores topology (core_id, core_siblings_list end
friends under /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/topology) and I seems
to me that I've disabled the right ones.

It could be that I've messed up with something else...

 > If not, it would be good to know why the extra TPS
> to replicate elsewhere.

definitely I will try to understand the
probable causes performing other tests...
any hints are welcome :)


>