Re: Hyperthreading (was: Two identical systems, radically different performance) - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Shaun Thomas
Subject Re: Hyperthreading (was: Two identical systems, radically different performance)
Date
Msg-id 50756F95.7040006@optionshouse.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Hyperthreading (was: Two identical systems, radically different performance)  (Craig James <cjames@emolecules.com>)
Responses Re: Hyperthreading (was: Two identical systems, radically different performance)
List pgsql-performance
On 10/09/2012 06:30 PM, Craig James wrote:

>                ra:8192 walb:1M   ra:256 walb:1M    ra:256 walb:256kB
>                ----------------  ----------------  -----------------
> -c  -t        Run1  Run2  Run3  Run4  Run5  Run6  Run7  Run8  Run9
> 40  2500      4261  3722  4243  9286  9240  5712  9310  8530  8872
> 50  2000      4138  4399  3865  9213  9351  9578  8011  7651  8362

I think I speak for more than a few people here when I say: wat.

About the only thing I can ask, is: did you make these tests fair? And
by fair, I mean:

echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
pg_ctl -D /your/pg/dir restart

Between every test to make sure shared buffers and the OS inode cache
was empty before the start of each test? If you're using that bash-style
for-loop you attached earlier, probably not. Still though, I don't think
that would account for this much variance between having read-ahead at
8M as opposed to 256kb.

My head hurts.

--
Shaun Thomas
OptionsHouse | 141 W. Jackson Blvd. | Suite 500 | Chicago IL, 60604
312-444-8534
sthomas@optionshouse.com

______________________________________________

See http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer/ for terms and conditions related to this email


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: François Beausoleil
Date:
Subject: Re: Ways to speed up ts_rank
Next
From: Shaun Thomas
Date:
Subject: Re: shared_buffers/effective_cache_size on 96GB server