Re: scaling beyond 4 processors

From: Christopher Browne
Subject: Re: scaling beyond 4 processors
Date: ,
Msg-id: 31kp6jF3ad57bU5@individual.net
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: scaling beyond 4 processors  ()
List: pgsql-performance

Tree view

scaling beyond 4 processors  (, )
 Re: scaling beyond 4 processors  (Jeff, )
 Re: scaling beyond 4 processors  (Christopher Browne, )
 Re: scaling beyond 4 processors  (Christopher Browne, )
 Re: scaling beyond 4 processors  (Josh Berkus, )

The perhaps odd thing is that just about any alternative to quad-Xeon
is likely to be _way_ better.  There are some context switching
problems that lead to it being remarkably poorer than you'd expect.
Throw in less-than ideal performance of the PAE memory addressing
system and it seems oddly crippled overall.

We've been getting pretty good results with IBM pSeries systems;
they're expensive, but definitely very fast.

Preliminary results with Opterons are also looking very promising.
One process seemed about 25x as fast on a 4-way 8GB Opteron as it was
on a 4-way 8GB Xeon, albeit with enough differences to make the
comparison dangerous.
--
wm(X,Y):-write(X),write('@'),write(Y). wm('cbbrowne','gmail.com').
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/sgml.html
The IETF motto: "Rough consensus *and* working code."


pgsql-performance by date:

From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: Config review
From: Hannu Krosing
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_restore taking 4 hours!