pg.ddx.io pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive help / color / mirror / Atom feed From: Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz>
To: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, "Graeme B. Bell" <grb@skogoglandskap.no>
Subject: Re: Turn off Hyperthreading! WAS: 60 core performance with 9.3
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:24:12 +1200
Message-ID: <53FD5D6C.40105@catalyst.net.nz> (raw )
In-Reply-To: <53FBB527.9030007@agliodbs.com >
References: <53ACB190.2030206@catalyst.net.nz >
<WM!d3faee1472c3c4b0fa7a14ce4fee2175ef92f1e0d7e7edb62fe3bcc6fa7e486c99870994a65fa43cc61df990ae549575!@asav-2.01.com >
<53ECFD75.3060408@agliodbs.com >
<53ED371D.109@catalyst.net.nz >
<WM!14a45a34c8080927967621cff2751e173aba58b17a2748a7a628c8fd3be56f3c9596f20e774ed5df15c6863316278466!@asav-2.01.com >
<53F4F36E.6050003@agliodbs.com >
<20140821024036.GB26706@momjian.us >
<WM!a6def31edfeb44a0c2b33db4efa373ee781a1b82f342c0a03c2d35e540e65a0434c32d64b1353526644d086f6706ce42!@asav-3.01.com >
<53F65E62.3020909@agliodbs.com >
<20140822140223.GP17406@alap3.anarazel.de >
<WM!12468414a2893a5aa6182d55df53428aa09d376e1c00b06b7adacfc72378e3964c2d1bbc4521a25a709fb9d44d394ea8!@asav-2.01.com >
<53FBB527.9030007@agliodbs.com >
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-performance>
On 26/08/14 10:13, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 08/22/2014 07:02 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2014-08-21 14:02:26 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>> On 08/20/2014 07:40 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>>> Not sure how you can make such a blanket statement when so many people
>>>> have tested and shown the benefits of hyper-threading.
>>>
>>> Actually, I don't know that anyone has posted the benefits of HT.
>>> Link?
>>
>> There's definitely cases where it can help. But it's highly workload
>> *and* hardware dependent.
>
> The only cases I've seen where HT can be beneficial is when you have
> large numbers of idle connections. Then the idle connections can be
> "parked" on the HT virtual cores. However, even in this case I haven't
> seen a head-to-head performance comparison.
>
I've just had a pair of Crucial m550's arrive, so a bit of benchmarking
is in order. The results (below) seem to suggest that HT enabled is
certainly not inhibiting scaling performance for single socket i7's. I
performed several runs (typical results shown below).
Intel i7-4770 3.4 Ghz, 16G
2x Crucial m550
Ubuntu 14.04
Postgres 9.4 beta2
logging_collector = on
max_connections = 600
shared_buffers = 1GB
wal_buffers = 32MB
checkpoint_segments = 128
effective_cache_size = 10GB
pgbench scale = 300
test duration (each) = 600s
db on 1x m550
xlog on 1x m550
clients | tps (HT)| tps (no HT)
--------+----------+-------------
4 | 517 | 520
8 | 1013 | 999
16 | 1938 | 1913
32 | 3574 | 3560
64 | 5873 | 5412
128 | 8351 | 7450
256 | 9426 | 7840
512 | 9357 | 7288
Regards
Mark
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
view thread (26+ messages)
Message-ID: <53FD5D6C.40105@catalyst.net.nz>
Permalink: ../53FD5D6C.40105@catalyst.net.nz/
Also on: postgresql.org/message-id/53FD5D6C.40105@catalyst.net.nz
copy link · copy postgr.es
reply 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: mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz, josh@agliodbs.com, andres@2ndquadrant.com, bruce@momjian.us, grb@skogoglandskap.no
Subject: Re: Turn off Hyperthreading! WAS: 60 core performance with 9.3
In-Reply-To: <53FD5D6C.40105@catalyst.net.nz>
* 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