Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.208.211])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C7DF632DAB
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:54:14 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 25639-04
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:54:11 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from EXHUB018-4.exch018.msoutlookonline.net
	(exhub018-4.exch018.msoutlookonline.net [64.78.17.19])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACA8D63281D
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:54:05 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from EXVMBX018-1.exch018.msoutlookonline.net ([64.78.17.47]) by
	EXHUB018-4.exch018.msoutlookonline.net ([64.78.17.19]) with mapi;
	Fri, 13 Mar 2009 09:54:03 -0700
From: Scott Carey <scott@richrelevance.com>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>, "Jignesh K. Shah"
	<J.K.Shah@Sun.COM>
CC: "pgsql-performance@postgresql.org" <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 09:54:01 -0700
Subject: Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4
Thread-Topic: [PERFORM] Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4
Thread-Index: Acmj9DP4XEr14VUqS5uldvwkW4l/GAACBsQq
Message-ID: <C5DFDDB9.341B%scott@richrelevance.com>
In-Reply-To: <49BA3BA2.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="_000_C5DFDDB9341Bscottrichrelevancecom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.001 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL=-0.000,
	HTML_MESSAGE=0.001
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200903/164
X-Sequence-Number: 33086

--_000_C5DFDDB9341Bscottrichrelevancecom_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 3/13/09 8:55 AM, "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote:

>>> "Jignesh K. Shah" <J.K.Shah@Sun.COM> wrote:
> usr sys  wt idl sze
>  38  11   0  50  64

The fact that you're maxing out at 50% CPU utilization has me
wondering -- are there really 64 CPUs here, or are there 32 CPUs with
"hyperthreading" technology (or something conceptually similar)?

-Kevin

Its a sun T1000  or T2000 type box, which are 4 threads per processor core =
IIRC.  Its in his first post:

"
UltraSPARC T2 based 1 socket (64 threads) and 2 socket (128 threads)
servers that Sun sells.
"

These processors use an in-order execution engine and fill the bubbles in t=
he pipelines with SMT (the non-marketing name for hyperthreading).
They are rather efficient at it though, moreso than Intel's first stab at i=
t.  And Intel's next generation chips hitting the streets in servers in les=
s than a month, have it again.

--_000_C5DFDDB9341Bscottrichrelevancecom_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [PERFORM] Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE=3D"Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:=
11pt'>On 3/13/09 8:55 AM, &quot;Kevin Grittner&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"Kevin.G=
rittner@wicourts.gov">Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov</a>&gt; wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"=
><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'>&gt;&gt;&gt; &quot;Jignesh K. Shah&quot; &l=
t;<a href=3D"J.K.Shah@Sun.COM">J.K.Shah@Sun.COM</a>&gt; wrote:<BR>
&gt; usr sys &nbsp;wt idl sze<BR>
&gt; &nbsp;38 &nbsp;11 &nbsp;&nbsp;0 &nbsp;50 &nbsp;64<BR>
<BR>
The fact that you're maxing out at 50% CPU utilization has me<BR>
wondering -- are there really 64 CPUs here, or are there 32 CPUs with<BR>
&quot;hyperthreading&quot; technology (or something conceptually similar)?<=
BR>
<BR>
-Kevin<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial=
"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'>Its a sun T1000 &nbsp;or T2000 type box, w=
hich are 4 threads per processor core IIRC. &nbsp;Its in his first post:<BR=
>
<BR>
&#8220;<BR>
UltraSPARC T2 based 1 socket (64 threads) and 2 socket (128 threads)<BR>
servers that Sun sells.<BR>
&#8220;<BR>
<BR>
These processors use an in-order execution engine and fill the bubbles in t=
he pipelines with SMT (the non-marketing name for hyperthreading).<BR>
They are rather efficient at it though, moreso than Intel&#8217;s first sta=
b at it. &nbsp;And Intel&#8217;s next generation chips hitting the streets =
in servers in less than a month, have it again.</SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>


--_000_C5DFDDB9341Bscottrichrelevancecom_--