User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.5.060620
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 23:17:05 -0700
Subject: Re: Xeon Woodcrest/Dempsey vs Opteron Socket F/940
From: "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan@greenplum.com>
To: "Arjen van der Meijden" <acmmailing@tweakers.net>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Message-ID: <C12658F1.30614%llonergan@greenplum.com>
Thread-Topic: [PERFORM] Xeon Woodcrest/Dempsey vs Opteron Socket F/940
	with postgresql and some SAS raid-figures
Thread-Index: AcbTDme7pgVHLj8BEduyKwAWy4o9DA==
In-Reply-To: <450104C8.2070709@tweakers.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Very nice!

The 3Ware cards have fallen far behind Areca it seems.  They look close in
Raid 10 performance, but with RAID5 they get crushed.

I'm about to purchase 20 machines for the lab and I think this article
pushes me toward Woodcrest, though I think it's a short term decision with
quad core AMD socket F coming later this year.  Right now it seems that the
Intel advantage is about 30%-40%.

- Luke


On 9/7/06 10:51 PM, "Arjen van der Meijden" <acmmailing@tweakers.net> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> We've been running our "webapp database"-benchmark again on mysql and
> postgresql. This time using a Fujitsu-Siemens RX300 S3 machine equipped
> with a 2.66Ghz Woodcrest (5150) and a 3.73Ghz Dempsey (5080). And
> compared those results to our earlier undertaken Opteron benchmarks on
> 2.4GHz' Socket F- and 940-versions (2216, 280).
> 
> You can see the english translation here:
> http://tweakers.net/reviews/646
> 
> The Woodcrest is quite a bit faster than the Opterons. Actually... With
> Hyperthreading *enabled* the older Dempsey-processor is also faster than
> the Opterons with PostgreSQL. But then again, it is the top-model
> Dempsey and not a top-model Opteron so that isn't a clear win.
> Of course its clear that even a top-Opteron wouldn't beat the Dempsey's
> as easily as it would have beaten the older Xeon's before that.
> 
> Again PostgreSQL shows very good scalability, so good even
> HyperThreading adds extra performance to it with 4 cores enabled...
> while MySQL in every version we tested (5.1.9 is not displayed, but
> showed similar performance) was slower with HT enabled.
> 
> Further more we received our ordered Dell MD1000 SAS-enclosure which has
> 15 SAS Fujitsu MAX3036RC disks and that unit is controlled using a Dell
> PERC 5/e.
> We've done some benchmarks (unfortunately everything is in Dutch for this).
> 
> We tested varying amounts of disks in RAID10 (a set of 4,5,6 and 7
> 2-disk-mirrors striped), RAID50 and RAID5. The interfaces to display the
> results are in a google-stylee beta-state, but here is a list of all
> benchmarks done:
> http://tweakers.net/benchdb/search?query=md1000&ColcomboID=5
> 
> Hover over the left titles to see how many disks and in what raid-level
>   was done. Here is a comparison of 14 disk RAID5/50/10's:
> http://tweakers.net/benchdb/testcombo/wide/?TestcomboIDs%5B1156%5D=1&Testcombo
> IDs%5B1178%5D=1&TestcomboIDs%5B1176%5D=1&DB=Nieuws&Query=Keyword
> 
> For raid5 we have some graphs:
> http://tweakers.net/benchdb/testcombo/1156
> Scroll down to see how adding disks improves performance on it. The
> Areca 1280 with WD Raptor's is a very good alternative (or even better)
> as you can see for most benchmarks, but is beaten as soon as the
> relative weight of random-IO increases (I/O-meter fileserver and
> database benchmarks), the processor on the 1280 is faster than the one
> on the Dell-controller so its faster in sequential IO.
> These benchmarks were not done using postgresql, so you shouldn't read
> them as absolute for all your situations ;-) But you can get a good
> impression I think.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Arjen van der Meijden
> Tweakers.net
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
> 
>                http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
>