From: David Boreham <david_list@boreham.org>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: HT on or off for E5-26xx ?
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 06:45:25 -0700
Message-ID: <509A65F5.2020306@boreham.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1352295444.3774.109.camel@lenovo01-laptop03.gunduz.org>
References: <5099D5FA.90802@boreham.org>
<1352295444.3774.109.camel@lenovo01-laptop03.gunduz.org>
On 11/7/2012 6:37 AM, Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote:
> HT should be good for file servers, or say many of the app servers, or
> small web/mail servers. PostgreSQL relies on the CPU power, and since
> the HT CPUs don't have the same power as the original CPU, when OS
> submits a job to that particular HTed CPU, query will run significantly
> slow. To avoid issues, I would suggest you to turn HT off on all
> PostgreSQL servers. If you can throw some more money, another 6-core CPU
> would give more benefit.
I realize this is the "received knowledge" but it is not supported by
the evidence before me (which is that I get nearly 2x the throughput
from pgbench using nthreads == nhtcores vs nthreads == nfullcores).
Intel's latest HT implementation seems to suffer less from the kinds of
resource sharing contention issues seen in older generations.
Once I have the machine's full memory installed I'll run pgbench with HT
disabled in the BIOS and post the results.
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: david_list@boreham.org
Subject: Re: HT on or off for E5-26xx ?
In-Reply-To: <509A65F5.2020306@boreham.org>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox