Re: Xeon Woodcrest/Dempsey vs Opteron Socket F/940 with - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Stefan Kaltenbrunner
Subject Re: Xeon Woodcrest/Dempsey vs Opteron Socket F/940 with
Date
Msg-id 450197EA.7040900@kaltenbrunner.cc
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Xeon Woodcrest/Dempsey vs Opteron Socket F/940 with  (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
Arjen van der Meijden wrote:
> On 8-9-2006 15:01 Dave Cramer wrote:
>>
>>> But then again, systems with the Woodcrest 5150 (the subtop one) and
>>> Opteron 280 (also the subtop one) are about equal in price, so its
>>> not a bad comparison in a bang-for-bucks point of view. The Dempsey
>>> was added to show how both the Opteron and the newer Woodcrest would
>>> compete against that one.
>>
>> Did I read this correctly that one of the Opterons in the test only
>> had 4G of ram vs 7 G in the Intel boxes ? If so this is a severely
>> limiting factor for postgresql at least?
>
> Actually, its not in this benchmark. Its not a large enough dataset to
> put any pressure on IO, not even with just 2GB of memory.

interesting - so this is a mostly CPU-bound benchmark ?
Out of curiousity have you done any profiling on the databases under
test to see where they are spending their time ?


Stefan

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Arjen van der Meijden
Date:
Subject: Re: Xeon Woodcrest/Dempsey vs Opteron Socket F/940 with
Next
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: Re: Performance in a 7 TB database.