From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Status of Opteron vs Xeon
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 14:44:37 -0400
Message-ID: <6429.1128710677@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <60r7axjkpj.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0510061654080.21147@discord.dyndns.org>
<60r7axjkpj.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com>
Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> writes:
> jeff@frostconsultingllc.com (Jeff Frost) writes:
>> What's the current status of how much faster the Opteron is compared
>> to the Xeons? I know the Opterons used to be close to 2x faster,
>> but is that still the case? I understand much work has been done to
>> reduce the contect switching storms on the Xeon architecture, is
>> this correct?
> Work has gone into 8.1 to try to help with the context switch storms;
> that doesn't affect previous versions.
Also note that we've found that the current coding of the TAS macro
seems to be very bad for at least some Opterons --- they do much better
if the "pre-test" cmpb is removed. But this is not true for all x86_64
chips. We still have an open issue about what to do about this.
regards, tom lane
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: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, cbbrowne@acm.org
Subject: Re: Status of Opteron vs Xeon
In-Reply-To: <6429.1128710677@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* 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