Re: Report of performance on Alpha vs. Intel - Mailing list pgsql-general
From | Zeljko Trogrlic |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Report of performance on Alpha vs. Intel |
Date | |
Msg-id | 4.1.20000905205949.0186af38@pop.tel.hr Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Report of performance on Alpha vs. Intel ("Steve Wolfe" <steve@iboats.com>) |
List | pgsql-general |
Memory and cache are the most important parameters for db server, and PC lacks both. At 19:14 5.9.2000 , Steve Wolfe wrote: > > This week, I had the opportunity to compare the performance of PostgreSQL >on an Alpha and an Intel server, and the results kind of surprised me. I'd >love to hear if this has been the case for others as well... > >------------- >Intel Machine > >SuperMicro 8050 quad Xeon server >512 MB RAM >4 x PII Xeon 400 MHz (secondary cache disabled) >RAID array w/ 5 9-gig drives > >Approximate cost: $6000 >-------------- >Alpha Machine >AlphaServer DS20E >2 x CPU (500 MHz or 667 MHz) >2 GB RAM >9-gig SCSI drive > >Approximate cost: $20,000 - $25,000 >----------------------- > >General System notes > > I'm not sure which chips the Alpha uses, the 500 MHz or the 667 MHz. >Also, because the SuperMicro board is meant for the newer Xeons, the >secondary cache had to be completely disabled on the PII 400 Xeons, so that >machine was definitely not running up to potential. > >------------------------- >Test method > > This wasn't exactly the ANSI tests, but it accurately reflected what we >need out of a machine. A while back we logged 87,000 individual queries on >our production machine, and I selected one thousand distinct queries from >that. > > On each machine I spawned 20 parallel processes, each performing the >1,000 queries, and timed how long it took for all processes to finish. > > To try and keep the disk subsystem from being a factor, this used only >selects, no updates or deletes. Also, the database is small enough that the >entire thing was easily in the disk cache at all times. >-------------------------- >Test results > > The Alpha finished in just over 60 minutes, the Xeon finished in just over >90. > >----------------------------- >Test interpretation > > Once I started looking at the numbers, I was suprised. On a >processor-for-processor basis, the Alpha was three times as fast as the >Intels. However, the Intels that it was pitted against were only 400 MHz >chips, only PII (not the PIII), *and* had the external cache completely >disabled. > > So, the Alpha provided three times the performance for four times the >cost - but if the megabyte of cache had been enabled on the Xeons, I think >that the results would have been significantly different. Also, if the >chips had been even relatively recent chips (say, some 700 or 800 MHz Xeons) >with the cache enabled, it's possible that it could have come close to the >performance of the Alpha, at a much lower cost. > > Overall, I was expecting the Alpha to give the Intel a better trouncing, >especially considering the difference in cost, but I guess it's hard to beat >Intel for transactions/dollar. If sheer server capacity is the only >relevant factor, forget Intel (You won't find Intels with 64 processors, and >I don't think you'll see them even with the Itaniums). If your needs are >more down-to-Earth, they're the best you can get for the money. > >steve > > v Zeljko Trogrlic ____________________________________________________________ Aeris d.o.o. Sv. Petka 60 b, HR-31000 Osijek, Croatia Tel: +385 (31) 53 00 15 Email: mailto:zeljko@post.hinet.hr
pgsql-general by date: