Hi Mario,
I did run pgbench on several production servers:
HP DL585 - 4-way AMD Opteron 875
HP DL585 - 4-way AMD Opteron 880
HP DL580 G3 - 4-way Intel XEON MP 3.0 GHz
FSC RX600 S2 - 4-way Intel XEON MP DC 2.66 GHz
FSC RX600 - 4-way Intel XEON MP 2.5 GHz
This test has been done with 8.1.4. I increased the number of clients.
I attached the result as diagram. I included not all test system but the
gap between XEON and Opteron is always the same.
The experiences with production systems were the same. We replaced the
XEON box with Opteron box with a dramatic change of performance.
Best regards
Sven.
Mario Splivalo schrieb:
> On Sat, 2006-06-03 at 11:43 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 10:31:03AM +0100, fzied@planet.tn wrote:
>>> I do have 2 identical beasts (4G - biproc Xeon 3.2 - 2 Gig NIC)
>>> One beast will be apache, and the other will be postgres.
>>> I'm using httperf/autobench for measurments and the best result I can get
>>> is that my system can handle a trafiic of almost 1600 New con/sec.
>> What version of PostgreSQL? (8.1 is better than 8.0 is much better than 7.4.)
>> Have you remembered to turn HT off? Have you considered Opterons instead of
>> Xeons? (The Xeons generally scale bad with PostgreSQL.) What kind of queries
>
> Could you point out to some more detailed reading on why Xeons are
> poorer choice than Opterons when used with PostgreSQL?
>
> Mario
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
--
/This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not
copy it, re-transmit it, use it or disclose its contents, but should
return it to the sender immediately and delete your copy from your
system. Thank you for your cooperation./
Sven Geisler <sgeisler@aeccom.com> Tel +49.30.5362.1627 Fax .1638
Senior Developer, AEC/communications GmbH Berlin, Germany
