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.
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
