Re: Xeon Woodcrest/Dempsey vs Opteron Socket F/940 with postgresql and some SAS raid-figures - Mailing list pgsql-performance
From | Dave Cramer |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Xeon Woodcrest/Dempsey vs Opteron Socket F/940 with postgresql and some SAS raid-figures |
Date | |
Msg-id | 398A981F-5DE4-4845-ACF7-BB5777CECF05@fastcrypt.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Xeon Woodcrest/Dempsey vs Opteron Socket F/940 with postgresql and some SAS raid-figures (Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@tweakers.net>) |
Responses |
Re: Xeon Woodcrest/Dempsey vs Opteron Socket F/940 with
(Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@tweakers.net>)
|
List | pgsql-performance |
Hi, Arjen, On 8-Sep-06, at 1:51 AM, Arjen van der Meijden wrote: > Hi, > > We've been running our "webapp database"-benchmark again on mysql > and postgresql. This time using a Fujitsu-Siemens RX300 S3 machine > equipped with a 2.66Ghz Woodcrest (5150) and a 3.73Ghz Dempsey > (5080). And compared those results to our earlier undertaken > Opteron benchmarks on 2.4GHz' Socket F- and 940-versions (2216, 280). > > You can see the english translation here: > http://tweakers.net/reviews/646 > > The Woodcrest is quite a bit faster than the Opterons. Actually... > With Hyperthreading *enabled* the older Dempsey-processor is also > faster than the Opterons with PostgreSQL. But then again, it is the > top-model Dempsey and not a top-model Opteron so that isn't a clear > win. > Of course its clear that even a top-Opteron wouldn't beat the > Dempsey's as easily as it would have beaten the older Xeon's before > that. Why wouldn't you use a top of the line Opteron ? > > Again PostgreSQL shows very good scalability, so good even > HyperThreading adds extra performance to it with 4 cores enabled... > while MySQL in every version we tested (5.1.9 is not displayed, but > showed similar performance) was slower with HT enabled. > > Further more we received our ordered Dell MD1000 SAS-enclosure > which has 15 SAS Fujitsu MAX3036RC disks and that unit is > controlled using a Dell PERC 5/e. > We've done some benchmarks (unfortunately everything is in Dutch > for this). > > We tested varying amounts of disks in RAID10 (a set of 4,5,6 and 7 > 2-disk-mirrors striped), RAID50 and RAID5. The interfaces to > display the results are in a google-stylee beta-state, but here is > a list of all benchmarks done: > http://tweakers.net/benchdb/search?query=md1000&ColcomboID=5 > > Hover over the left titles to see how many disks and in what raid- > level was done. Here is a comparison of 14 disk RAID5/50/10's: > http://tweakers.net/benchdb/testcombo/wide/?TestcomboIDs%5B1156% > 5D=1&TestcomboIDs%5B1178%5D=1&TestcomboIDs%5B1176% > 5D=1&DB=Nieuws&Query=Keyword > > For raid5 we have some graphs: > http://tweakers.net/benchdb/testcombo/1156 > Scroll down to see how adding disks improves performance on it. The > Areca 1280 with WD Raptor's is a very good alternative (or even > better) as you can see for most benchmarks, but is beaten as soon > as the relative weight of random-IO increases (I/O-meter fileserver > and database benchmarks), the processor on the 1280 is faster than > the one on the Dell-controller so its faster in sequential IO. > These benchmarks were not done using postgresql, so you shouldn't > read them as absolute for all your situations ;-) But you can get a > good impression I think. > > Best regards, > > Arjen van der Meijden > Tweakers.net > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq >
pgsql-performance by date: