Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([98.129.198.125])
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <david_list@boreham.org>) id 1TVwME-0002aP-3H
	for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Wed, 07 Nov 2012 03:31:14 +0000
Received: from server13-scl.nuevasync.com ([64.13.138.208]
	helo=mail.nuevasync.com)
	by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <david_list@boreham.org>) id 1TVwMC-0000GB-UP
	for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Wed, 07 Nov 2012 03:31:13 +0000
Received: from [192.168.65.253] (unknown [69.51.127.178])
	by mail.nuevasync.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48599458006
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Tue,  6 Nov 2012 20:31:11 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <5099D5FA.90802@boreham.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 20:31:06 -0700
From: David Boreham <david_list@boreham.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
	rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: HT on or off for E5-26xx ?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-)
X-Archive-Number: 201211/77
X-Sequence-Number: 48443


I'm bringing up a new type of server using Intel E5-2620 (unisocket) 
which was selected for good SpecIntRate performance vs cost/power (201 
for $410 and 95W).

Was assuming it was 6-core but I just noticed it has HT which is 
currently enabled since I see 12 cores in /proc/cpuinfo

Question for the performance experts : is it better to have HT enabled 
or disabled for this generation of Xeon ?
Workload will be moderately concurrent, small OLTP type transactions. 
We'll also run a few low-load VMs (using KVM) and a big Java application.

Any thoughts welcome.
Thanks.