X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56C4B536BB for ; Sun, 15 May 2005 16:36:22 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 69509-07 for ; Sun, 15 May 2005 19:36:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from stark.xeocode.com (stark.xeocode.com [216.58.44.227]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F07B5378A for ; Sun, 15 May 2005 16:36:16 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=stark.xeocode.com) by stark.xeocode.com with smtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1DXOuI-00083m-00; Sun, 15 May 2005 15:36:10 -0400 To: William Yu Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: ok you all win what is best opteron (I dont want a hosed system References: <4285403A.50206@bigpond.net.au> <00e201c558b1$730ffb10$797ba8c0@jfradkin> In-Reply-To: From: Greg Stark Organization: The Emacs Conspiracy; member since 1992 Date: 15 May 2005 15:36:10 -0400 Message-ID: <871x8846z9.fsf@stark.xeocode.com> Lines: 16 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.005 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200505/289 X-Sequence-Number: 12453 William Yu writes: > It turns out the latency in a 2xDC setup is just so much lower and most apps > like lower latency than higher bandwidth. You haven't tested anything about "most apps". You tested what the SpecFoo apps prefer. If you're curious about which Postgres prefers you'll have to test with Postgres. I'm not sure whether it will change the conclusion but I expect Postgres will like bandwidth better than random benchmarks do. -- greg