Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([98.129.198.125])
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <sickpig@opinioni.net>) id 1TNn2D-0005df-BS
	for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 15:56:53 +0000
Received: from host36.ns3.it ([80.79.54.36] helo=mail.opinioni.net)
	by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <sickpig@opinioni.net>) id 1TNn27-00022A-Vg
	for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 15:56:52 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mail.opinioni.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6791B4E2332;
	Mon, 15 Oct 2012 17:59:27 +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 SH+FjgQ5C4FW; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 17:59:27 +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 1F8634E2331;
	Mon, 15 Oct 2012 17:59:27 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <507C323C.2090805@opinioni.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 17:56:44 +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: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
CC: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>,
	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>
	<CAOR=d=02vBk24Mt7cJd9SBxjAcL26Ao=N_8o7ZxB-qe0VW1T8A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOR=d=02vBk24Mt7cJd9SBxjAcL26Ao=N_8o7ZxB-qe0VW1T8A@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: 201210/191
X-Sequence-Number: 48150

On 10/15/2012 05:34 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Andrea Suisani <sickpig@opinioni.net> wrote:
>>> 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?). If not, it would be good to know why the extra TPS
>> to replicate elsewhere.
>
> I'd recommend more synthetic benchmarks when trying to compare systems
> like this.  bonnie++, the memory stream test that Greg Smith was
> working on, and so on.  Get an idea what core differences the machines
> display under such testing.
>

Will try tomorrow
thanks for the hint

Andrea