X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1737411F6747 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:24:59 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 36283-04-2 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:24:39 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from floppy.pyrenet.fr (news.pyrenet.fr [194.116.145.2]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0653311F671F for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:24:38 -0300 (ADT) Received: by floppy.pyrenet.fr (Postfix, from userid 106) id EBAFF3147B; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 17:24:37 +0200 (MET DST) From: William Yu X-Newsgroups: pgsql.performance Subject: Re: Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 08:24:35 -0700 Organization: Hub.Org Networking Services Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: <20060425141435.6c8c163c.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> <1145990018.23538.234.camel@state.g2switchworks.com> <20060425183817.GA9241@mark.mielke.cc> <1145990551.23538.244.camel@state.g2switchworks.com> <20060426005440.GA12711@mark.mielke.cc> <20060426011701.GB12711@mark.mielke.cc> <444F870D.2000307@boreham.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.hub.org User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20051201) In-Reply-To: <444F870D.2000307@boreham.org> To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.217 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=BAYES_00, SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL, SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Level: * X-Archive-Number: 200604/607 X-Sequence-Number: 18691 David Boreham wrote: > It isn't only Postgres. I work on a number of other server applications > that also run much faster on Opterons than the published benchmark > figures would suggest they should. They're all compiled with gcc4, > so possibly there's a compiler issue. I don't run Windows on any > of our Opteron boxes so I can't easily compare using the MS compiler. Maybe it's just a fact that the majority of x86 64-bit development for open source software happens on Opteron/A64 machines. 64-bit AMD machines were selling a good year before 64-bit Intel machines were available. And even after Intel EMT64 were available, anybody in their right mind would have picked AMD machines over Intel due to cost/heat/performance. So you end up with 64-bit OSS being developed/optimized for Opterons and the 10% running Intel EMT64 handle compatibility issues. Would be interesting to see a survey of what machines OSS developers use to write/test/optimize their code.