pg.ddx.io pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feedOpteron vs. Xeon "benchmark"
10+ messages / 7 participants
[nested] [flat]
* Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark"
@ 2006-09-22 08:32 Hannes Dorbath <light@theendofthetunnel.de>
2006-09-22 08:58 ` Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" nicky <nicky@valuecare.nl>
2006-09-22 08:59 ` Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@tweakers.net>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Hannes Dorbath @ 2006-09-22 08:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-performance
A colleague pointed me to this site tomorrow:
http://tweakers.net/reviews/642/13
I can't read the language, so can't get a grip on what exactly the
"benchmark" was about.
Their diagrams show `Request per seconds'. What should that mean? How
many connections PG accepted per second? So they measured the OS fork
performance? Should that value be of any interrest? Anyone with heavy
OLTP workload will use persistent connections or a connection pool in front.
Do they mean TPS? That woulnd't make much sense in a CPU benchmark, as
OLTP workload is typically limited by the disc subsystem.
Can someone enlighten me what this site is about?
--
Regards,
Hannes Dorbath
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark"
2006-09-22 08:32 Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" Hannes Dorbath <light@theendofthetunnel.de>
@ 2006-09-22 08:58 ` nicky <nicky@valuecare.nl>
2006-09-22 20:34 ` Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" Vivek Khera <vivek@khera.org>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: nicky @ 2006-09-22 08:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hannes Dorbath <light@theendofthetunnel.de>; +Cc: pgsql-performance
Hello Hannes,
The text above the pictures on page 13. Translated in my crappy english.
The confrontation between the Opteron and Woodcrest was inevitable in
this article, but who can add 1 and 1 should have known from the
previous two pages that it doesn't look that good for AMD . Under loads
of 25 till 100 simultaneous visitors, the Xeon performs 24% better with
MSQL 4.1.20, 30% better in MySQL 5.0.20a and 37% better in PostgreSQL
8.2-dev. In short, the Socket F Opteron doesn't stand a chance, although
the Woodcrest scales better and has such a high startpoint with one
core, there is no chance of beating it. We can imagine that the Opteron
with more memory and production hardware, would be a few % faster, but
the difference with the Woodcrest is that high that we have a hard time
believing that the complete picture would change that much.
Regards,
Nick
Hannes Dorbath wrote:
> A colleague pointed me to this site tomorrow:
>
> http://tweakers.net/reviews/642/13
>
> I can't read the language, so can't get a grip on what exactly the
> "benchmark" was about.
>
> Their diagrams show `Request per seconds'. What should that mean? How
> many connections PG accepted per second? So they measured the OS fork
> performance? Should that value be of any interrest? Anyone with heavy
> OLTP workload will use persistent connections or a connection pool in
> front.
>
> Do they mean TPS? That woulnd't make much sense in a CPU benchmark, as
> OLTP workload is typically limited by the disc subsystem.
>
> Can someone enlighten me what this site is about?
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark"
2006-09-22 08:32 Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" Hannes Dorbath <light@theendofthetunnel.de>
2006-09-22 08:58 ` Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" nicky <nicky@valuecare.nl>
@ 2006-09-22 20:34 ` Vivek Khera <vivek@khera.org>
2006-09-22 21:50 ` Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@tweakers.net>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Vivek Khera @ 2006-09-22 20:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-performance
On Sep 22, 2006, at 4:58 AM, nicky wrote:
> till 100 simultaneous visitors, the Xeon performs 24% better with
> MSQL 4.1.20, 30% better in MySQL 5.0.20a and 37% better in
> PostgreSQL 8.2-dev. In short, the Socket F Opteron doesn't stand a
> chance, although the Woodcrest scales better and has such a high
> startpoint with one core, there is no chance of beating it. We
so you think AMD is just sitting around twiddling their thumbs and
saying "well, time to give up since Intel is faster today". no.
there will be back-and forth between these two vendors to our
benefit. I would expect next-gen AMD chips to be faster than the
intels. If not, then perhaps they *should* give up :-)
Attachments:
smime.p7s (application/pkcs7-signature, 2.5K) download
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark"
2006-09-22 08:32 Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" Hannes Dorbath <light@theendofthetunnel.de>
2006-09-22 08:58 ` Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" nicky <nicky@valuecare.nl>
2006-09-22 20:34 ` Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" Vivek Khera <vivek@khera.org>
@ 2006-09-22 21:50 ` Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@tweakers.net>
2006-09-22 22:36 ` Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" mark@mark.mielke.cc
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Arjen van der Meijden @ 2006-09-22 21:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vivek Khera <vivek@khera.org>; +Cc: pgsql-performance
On 22-9-2006 22:34 Vivek Khera wrote:
> so you think AMD is just sitting around twiddling their thumbs and
> saying "well, time to give up since Intel is faster today". no. there
> will be back-and forth between these two vendors to our benefit. I
> would expect next-gen AMD chips to be faster than the intels. If not,
> then perhaps they *should* give up :-)
Please read the english translation of that article I gave earlier
today. Than you can see the set-up and that its a bit childish to quote
"benchmark" as you did in the title of this thread.
All the answers in your initial mail are answered in the article, and as
said, there is an english translation of the dutch article you posted.
What you conclude from that translation is not the conclusion of the
article, just that AMD has *no* answer at this time and won't have for
at least somewhere in 2007 when their K8L will hit the market.
But the K8L is not likely to be as much faster as the Opteron was to the
first Xeon's, if at all faster...
If you're an AMD-fan, by all means, buy their products, those processors
are indeed fast and you can build decent servers with them. But don't
rule out Intel, just because with previous processors they were the
slower player ;)
Best regards,
Arjen van der Meijden
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark"
2006-09-22 08:32 Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" Hannes Dorbath <light@theendofthetunnel.de>
2006-09-22 08:58 ` Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" nicky <nicky@valuecare.nl>
2006-09-22 20:34 ` Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" Vivek Khera <vivek@khera.org>
2006-09-22 21:50 ` Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@tweakers.net>
@ 2006-09-22 22:36 ` mark@mark.mielke.cc
2006-09-23 13:00 ` Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" Guido Neitzer <guido.neitzer@gmail.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: mark@mark.mielke.cc @ 2006-09-22 22:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@tweakers.net>; +Cc: Vivek Khera <vivek@khera.org>; pgsql-performance
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 11:50:47PM +0200, Arjen van der Meijden wrote:
> If you're an AMD-fan, by all means, buy their products, those processors
> are indeed fast and you can build decent servers with them. But don't
> rule out Intel, just because with previous processors they were the
> slower player ;)
Yep. From what I understand, Intel is 8 to 10 times the size of AMD.
It's somewhat amazing that AMD even competes, and excellent for us, the
consumer, that they compete well, ensuring that we get very fast
computers, for amazingly low prices.
But Intel isn't crashing down any time soon. Perhaps they became a little
lazy, and made a few mistakes. AMD is forcing them to clean up.
May the competition continue... :-)
Cheers,
mark
--
mark@mielke.cc / markm@ncf.ca / markm@nortel.com __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark"
2006-09-22 08:32 Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" Hannes Dorbath <light@theendofthetunnel.de>
2006-09-22 08:58 ` Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" nicky <nicky@valuecare.nl>
2006-09-22 20:34 ` Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" Vivek Khera <vivek@khera.org>
2006-09-22 21:50 ` Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@tweakers.net>
2006-09-22 22:36 ` Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" mark@mark.mielke.cc
@ 2006-09-23 13:00 ` Guido Neitzer <guido.neitzer@gmail.com>
2006-09-23 13:16 ` Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Guido Neitzer @ 2006-09-23 13:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mark@mark.mielke.cc <mark@mark.mielke.cc>; +Cc: Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@tweakers.net>; Vivek Khera <vivek@khera.org>; pgsql-performance
I find the benchmark much more interesting in comparing PostgreSQL to
MySQL than Intel to AMD. It might be as biased as other "benchmarks"
but it shows clearly something that a lot of PostgreSQL user always
thought: MySQL gives up on concurrency ... it just doesn't scale well.
cug
On 9/23/06, mark@mark.mielke.cc <mark@mark.mielke.cc> wrote:
> Yep. From what I understand, Intel is 8 to 10 times the size of AMD.
>
> It's somewhat amazing that AMD even competes, and excellent for us, the
> consumer, that they compete well, ensuring that we get very fast
> computers, for amazingly low prices.
>
> But Intel isn't crashing down any time soon. Perhaps they became a little
> lazy, and made a few mistakes. AMD is forcing them to clean up.
>
> May the competition continue... :-)
>
> Cheers,
> mark
--
PostgreSQL Bootcamp, Big Nerd Ranch Europe, Nov 2006
http://www.bignerdranch.com/news/2006-08-21.shtml
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark"
2006-09-22 08:32 Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" Hannes Dorbath <light@theendofthetunnel.de>
2006-09-22 08:58 ` Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" nicky <nicky@valuecare.nl>
2006-09-22 20:34 ` Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" Vivek Khera <vivek@khera.org>
2006-09-22 21:50 ` Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@tweakers.net>
2006-09-22 22:36 ` Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" mark@mark.mielke.cc
2006-09-23 13:00 ` Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" Guido Neitzer <guido.neitzer@gmail.com>
@ 2006-09-23 13:16 ` Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com>
2006-09-23 13:49 ` Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" Guido Neitzer <guido.neitzer@gmail.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Dave Cramer @ 2006-09-23 13:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Guido Neitzer <guido.neitzer@gmail.com>; +Cc: mark@mark.mielke.cc <mark@mark.mielke.cc>; Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@tweakers.net>; Vivek Khera <vivek@khera.org>; pgsql-performance
On 23-Sep-06, at 9:00 AM, Guido Neitzer wrote:
> I find the benchmark much more interesting in comparing PostgreSQL to
> MySQL than Intel to AMD. It might be as biased as other "benchmarks"
> but it shows clearly something that a lot of PostgreSQL user always
> thought: MySQL gives up on concurrency ... it just doesn't scale well.
>
> cug
>
Before you get too carried away with this benchmark, you should
review the previous comments on this thread.
Not that I don't agree, but lets put things in perspective.
1) The database fits entirely in memory, so this is really only
testing CPU, not I/O which should be taken into account IMO
2) The machines were not "equal" The AMD boxes did not have as much ram.
DAVE
>
> On 9/23/06, mark@mark.mielke.cc <mark@mark.mielke.cc> wrote:
>> Yep. From what I understand, Intel is 8 to 10 times the size of AMD.
>>
>> It's somewhat amazing that AMD even competes, and excellent for
>> us, the
>> consumer, that they compete well, ensuring that we get very fast
>> computers, for amazingly low prices.
>>
>> But Intel isn't crashing down any time soon. Perhaps they became a
>> little
>> lazy, and made a few mistakes. AMD is forcing them to clean up.
>>
>> May the competition continue... :-)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> mark
>
>
>
> --
> PostgreSQL Bootcamp, Big Nerd Ranch Europe, Nov 2006
> http://www.bignerdranch.com/news/2006-08-21.shtml
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark"
2006-09-22 08:32 Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" Hannes Dorbath <light@theendofthetunnel.de>
2006-09-22 08:58 ` Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" nicky <nicky@valuecare.nl>
2006-09-22 20:34 ` Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" Vivek Khera <vivek@khera.org>
2006-09-22 21:50 ` Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@tweakers.net>
2006-09-22 22:36 ` Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" mark@mark.mielke.cc
2006-09-23 13:00 ` Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" Guido Neitzer <guido.neitzer@gmail.com>
2006-09-23 13:16 ` Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com>
@ 2006-09-23 13:49 ` Guido Neitzer <guido.neitzer@gmail.com>
2006-09-23 14:19 ` Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Guido Neitzer @ 2006-09-23 13:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com>; +Cc: pgsql-performance
On 9/23/06, Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com> wrote:
> 1) The database fits entirely in memory, so this is really only
> testing CPU, not I/O which should be taken into account IMO
I don't think this really is a reason that MySQL broke down on ten or
more concurrent connections. The RAM might be, but I don't think so
too in this case as it represents exactly what we have seen in similar
tests. MySQL performs quite well on easy queries and not so much
concurrency. We don't have that case very often in my company ... we
have at least ten to twenty connections to the db performing
statements. And we have some fairly complex statements running very
often.
Nevertheless - a benchmark is a benchmark. Nothing else. We prefer
PostgreSQL for other reasons then higher performance (which it has for
lots of situations).
cug
--
PostgreSQL Bootcamp, Big Nerd Ranch Europe, Nov 2006
http://www.bignerdranch.com/news/2006-08-21.shtml
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark"
2006-09-22 08:32 Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" Hannes Dorbath <light@theendofthetunnel.de>
2006-09-22 08:58 ` Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" nicky <nicky@valuecare.nl>
2006-09-22 20:34 ` Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" Vivek Khera <vivek@khera.org>
2006-09-22 21:50 ` Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@tweakers.net>
2006-09-22 22:36 ` Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" mark@mark.mielke.cc
2006-09-23 13:00 ` Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" Guido Neitzer <guido.neitzer@gmail.com>
2006-09-23 13:16 ` Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com>
2006-09-23 13:49 ` Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" Guido Neitzer <guido.neitzer@gmail.com>
@ 2006-09-23 14:19 ` Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Dave Cramer @ 2006-09-23 14:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Guido Neitzer <guido.neitzer@gmail.com>; +Cc: pgsql-performance
On 23-Sep-06, at 9:49 AM, Guido Neitzer wrote:
> On 9/23/06, Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com> wrote:
>
>> 1) The database fits entirely in memory, so this is really only
>> testing CPU, not I/O which should be taken into account IMO
>
> I don't think this really is a reason that MySQL broke down on ten or
> more concurrent connections. The RAM might be, but I don't think so
> too in this case as it represents exactly what we have seen in similar
> tests. MySQL performs quite well on easy queries and not so much
> concurrency. We don't have that case very often in my company ... we
> have at least ten to twenty connections to the db performing
> statements. And we have some fairly complex statements running very
> often.
>
> Nevertheless - a benchmark is a benchmark. Nothing else. We prefer
> PostgreSQL for other reasons then higher performance (which it has for
> lots of situations).
I should make myself clear. I like the results of the benchmark. But
I wanted to keep things in perspective.
Dave
>
> cug
>
> --
> PostgreSQL Bootcamp, Big Nerd Ranch Europe, Nov 2006
> http://www.bignerdranch.com/news/2006-08-21.shtml
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that
> your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark"
2006-09-22 08:32 Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" Hannes Dorbath <light@theendofthetunnel.de>
@ 2006-09-22 08:59 ` Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@tweakers.net>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Arjen van der Meijden @ 2006-09-22 08:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hannes Dorbath <light@theendofthetunnel.de>; +Cc: pgsql-performance
Try the translation ;)
http://tweakers.net/reviews/646/13
On 22-9-2006 10:32 Hannes Dorbath wrote:
> A colleague pointed me to this site tomorrow:
>
> http://tweakers.net/reviews/642/13
>
> I can't read the language, so can't get a grip on what exactly the
> "benchmark" was about.
>
> Their diagrams show `Request per seconds'. What should that mean? How
> many connections PG accepted per second? So they measured the OS fork
> performance? Should that value be of any interrest? Anyone with heavy
> OLTP workload will use persistent connections or a connection pool in
> front.
>
> Do they mean TPS? That woulnd't make much sense in a CPU benchmark, as
> OLTP workload is typically limited by the disc subsystem.
>
> Can someone enlighten me what this site is about?
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-09-23 14:19 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-09-22 08:32 Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" Hannes Dorbath <light@theendofthetunnel.de>
2006-09-22 08:58 ` nicky <nicky@valuecare.nl>
2006-09-22 20:34 ` Vivek Khera <vivek@khera.org>
2006-09-22 21:50 ` Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@tweakers.net>
2006-09-22 22:36 ` mark@mark.mielke.cc
2006-09-23 13:00 ` Guido Neitzer <guido.neitzer@gmail.com>
2006-09-23 13:16 ` Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com>
2006-09-23 13:49 ` Guido Neitzer <guido.neitzer@gmail.com>
2006-09-23 14:19 ` Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com>
2006-09-22 08:59 ` Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@tweakers.net>
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