Re: Linux v.s. Mac OS-X Performance - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Craig White
Subject Re: Linux v.s. Mac OS-X Performance
Date
Msg-id 1196126383.1959.2.camel@lin-workstation.azapple.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Linux v.s. Mac OS-X Performance  (Wes <wespvp@msg.bt.com>)
Responses Re: Linux v.s. Mac OS-X Performance  (Wolfgang Keller <wolfgang.keller.privat@gmx.de>)
List pgsql-general
On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 17:37 -0600, Wes wrote:
> On 11/13/07 10:02 AM, "Scott Ribe" <scott_ribe@killerbytes.com> wrote:
>
> > What you're referring to must be that the kernel was essentially
> > single-threaded, with a single "kernel-funnel" lock. (Because the OS
> > certainly supported threads, and it was certainly possible to write
> > highly-threaded applications, and I don't know of any performance problems
> > with threaded applications.)
> >
> > This has been getting progressively better, with each release adding more
> > in-kernel concurrency. Which means that 10.5 probably obsoletes all prior
> > postgres benchmarks on OS X.
>
> While I've never seen this documented anywhere, it empirically looks like
> 10.5 also (finally) adds CPU affinity to better utilize instruction caching.
> On a dual CPU system under 10.4, one CPU bound process would use two CPU's
> at 50%. Under 10.5 it uses one CPU at 100%.
>
> I never saw any resolution to this thread - were the original tests on the
> Opteron and OS X identical, or were they two different workloads?
----
resolution?

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2007-11/msg00946.php

conclusion?

Mac was still pretty slow in comparison

Craig


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Rules slower than Dynamic SQL ?
Next
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Desparately seeking new India Regional Contact for postgresql.org